US of breast masses categorized as BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5: Pictorial review of factors influencing clinical management

Radiographics

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1199-1213

  Raza, Sughra ^a   Goldkamp, Allison L ^a   Chikarmane, Sona A ^a   Birdwell, Robyn L ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST TUMOR; CLASSIFICATION; ECHOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; NOMENCLATURE; REVIEW; STANDARD;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 77957738704     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: 15271323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/rg.305095144     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. American College of Radiology. BI-RADS®-Ultrasound. 1st ed. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) atlas. 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
2. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization. Radiology 2006;241(2):355-365.
3. 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(2):385-391.
4. Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Kao E. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology 2009;252(3):665-672.
5. Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management-follow-up and outcome. Radiology 2008;248(3):773-781.
6. 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(3):850-856.
7. Mainiero MB, Goldkamp A, Lazarus E, et al. Characterization of breast masses with sonography: can biopsy of some solid masses be deferred? J Ultrasound Med 2005;24(2):161-167.
8. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;196(1):123-134.
9. Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184(4):1260-1265.
10. Soo MS, Kornguth PJ, Hertzberg BS. Fat necrosis in the breast: sonographic features. Radiology 1998; 206(1):261-269.
11. Costantini M, Belli P, Lombardi R, Franceschini G, Mulè A, Bonomo L. Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. J Ultrasound Med 2006;25(5):649-659.
12. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213(3):889-894.
13. Berg WA. Part IV. Diagnoses. Section 0. In: Berg WA, Birdwell RL, Gombos E, et al. Diagnostic imaging: breast. Salt Lake City, Utah: Amirsys, 2006; 10-13.
14. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179(2):463-468.
15. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992;184(2):409-414.
16. Vizcaíno I, Gadea L, Andreo L, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001;219(2):475-483.
17. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(3):691-695.
18. Sickles EA. Management of probably benign breast lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 1995;33(6):1123-1130.
19. American College of Radiology. BI-RADS®-Mammography. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) atlas. 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
20. Goodman KA, Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM. Compliance with recommended follow-up after percutaneous breast core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170(1):89-92.
21. Donegan WL. Evaluation of a palpable breast mass. N Engl J Med 1992;327(13):937-942.
22. Sickles EA, Parker SH. Appropriate role of core breast biopsy in the management of probably benign lesions [editorial]. Radiology 1993;188(2):315.
23. 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(3): 163-168.
24. Lindfors KK, O'Connor J, Acredolo CR, Liston SE. Short-interval follow-up mammography versus immediate core biopsy of benign breast lesions: assessment of patient stress. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171(1):55-58.
25. Lindfors KK, Rosenquist CJ. Needle core biopsy guided with mammography: a study of cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1994;190(1):217-222.
26. Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Surveillance mammography and stereotactic core breast biopsy for probably benign lesions: a cost comparison analysis. Acad Radiol 1997;4(6):419-425.
27. Witek-Janusek L, Gabram S, Mathews HL. Psychologic stress, reduced NK cell activity, and cytokine dysregulation in women experiencing diagnostic breast biopsy. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2007;32 (1):22-35.
28. Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991;178(1):155-158.
29. Soo MS, Rosen EL, Baker JA, Vo TT, Boyd BA. Negative predictive value of sonography with mammography in patients with palpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177(5):1167-1170.
30. Dennis MA, Parker SH, Klaus AJ, Stavros AT, Kaske TI, Clark SB. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump. Radiology 2001;219(1):186-191.
31. Shetty MK, Shah YP. Prospective evaluation of the value of negative sonographic and mammographic findings in patients with palpable abnormalities of the breast. J Ultrasound Med 2002;21(11):1211-1219.
32. Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R, et al. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology 2002;225(1):176-181.
33. Leung JW, Sickles EA. The probably benign assessment. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45(5):773-789, vi.
34. Raza S. Part IV. Diagnoses. Section 6. Infections and inflammation. In: Berg WA, Birdwell RL, Gombos E, et al. Diagnostic imaging: breast. Salt Lake City, Utah: Amirsys, 2006; 2-5.