Probably benign breast masses diagnosed by sonography: Is there a difference in the cancer rate according to palpability?

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 192, Issue 4, 2009, Pages

  Shin, Jung Hee ^a   Han, Boo Kyung ^a   Ko, Eun Young ^a   Choe, Yeon Hyeon ^a   Nam, Seok Jin ^a  

^a Sungkyunkwan University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

BI RADS category 3 masses; Breast biopsy; Breast cancer; Breast neoplasms; Sonography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECHOGRAPHY; EXCISION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MUCINOUS CARCINOMA; PAPILLARY CARCINOMA; PATHOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TUMOR BIOPSY;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 63849278724     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.1404     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system: breast imaging atlas, 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
2. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006; 239: 385-391
3. Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, et al. Observer variability of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2008; 65:293-298
4. Donegan WL. Evaluation of a palpable breast mass. N Engl J Med 1992; 327:937-942
5. Sickles EA, Parker SH. Appropriate role of core breast biopsy in the management of probably benign lesions. Radiology 1993; 188:315
6. Dawson AE, Mulford DK, Taylor AS, Logan Young W. Breast carcinoma detection in women age 35 years and younger: mammography and diagnosis by fine-needle aspiration cytology. Cancer 1998; 84:163-168
7. Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology 2007; 244:87-93
8. Graf O, Helbich TH, Fuchsjaeger MH, et al. Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology 2004; 233:850-856
9. Kim EK, Ko KH, Oh KK, et al. Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography.AJR 2008; 190:1209-1215
10. Sickles EA. Probably benign breast lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol? Radiology 1999; 213:11-14
11. Feig SA. Breast masses: mammographic and sonographic evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:67-92
12. Hall FM. Follow-up of probably benign breast lesions. Radiology 2000; 217:303-305
13. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1998
14. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179:463-468
15. Adler DD, Helvie MA, Ikeda DM. Nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesions: follow-up strategies after initial detection on mammography. AJR 1990; 155:1195-1201
16. Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991; 178:155-158
17. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:409-414
18. Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo L, et al. Short-term ollow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001; 219:475-483
19. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR 2002; 179:691-695
20. Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS. Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 2002; 223:221-228
21. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson B. Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization. Radiology 2006; 241:355-365
22. Lam WW, Chu WC, Tse GM, Ma TK. Sonographic appearance of mucinous carcinoma of the breast. AJR 2004; 182:1069-1074
23. Stavros AT. Malignant solid breast nodules: specific types. In: Stavros AT. Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004:645-648
24. Stavros AT. Malignant solid breast nodules: specific types. In: Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004:653-657
25. Kim MJ, Kim EK, Kwak JY, et al. Nonmalignant papillary lesions of the breast at US-guided directional vacuum-assisted removal: a preliminary report. Eur Radiol 2008; 18:1774-1783
26. Kil WH, Cho EY, Kim JH, Nam SJ, Yang JH. Is surgical excision necessary in benign papillary lesions initially diagnosed at core biopsy? Breast 2008; 17:258-262
27. Sydnor MK, Wilson JD, Hijaz TA, Massey HD, Shaw de Paredes ES. Underestimation of the presence of breast carcinoma in papillary lesions initially diagnosed at core-needle biopsy. Radiology 2007; 242:58-62
28. Mercado CL, Hamele-Bena D, Oken SM, Singer CI, Cangiarella J. Papillary lesions of the breast at percutaneous core-needle biopsy. Radiology 2006; 238:801-808
29. Liberman L, Tornos C, Huzjan R, Bartella L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. Is surgical excision warranted after benign, concordant diagnosis of papilloma at percutaneous breast biopsy? AJR 2006; 186:1328-1334
30. Comstock CE. US-guided interventional procedures. In: Feig SA, ed. 2005 Syllabus: categorical course in diagnostic radiology-breast imaging. Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America, 2005:155-168