Breast ultrasound diagnostic performance and outcomes for mass lesions using breast imaging reporting and data system category 0 mammogram

Clinics

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 443-448

  Zanello, Paulo Almazy ^a   Robim, Andre Felipe Cica ^a   de Oliveira, Tatiane Mendes Gonçalves ^a   Elias Jr , Jorge ^a   de Andrade, Jurandyr Moreira ^a   Monteiro, Carlos Ribeiro ^a   Filho, Joaquim Moraes Sarmento ^a   Carrara, Helio Humberto Angotti ^a   MugliaI, Valdair Francisco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Bi RADS; Breast Cancer; Breast ultrasonography; Mammography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; BREAST TUMOR; CARCINOMA; ECHOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 79957587939     PISSN: 18075932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S1807-59322011000300014     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. TM), 4rd edition. American College of Radiology, Reston, Va. 2003.
2. Mainiero M, Goldkamp A, Lazarus E, Livingston L, Koelliker SL, Schepps B, et al. Characterization of breast masses with sonography. Can biopsy of some solid masses be deferred? J Ultrasound Med. 2005; 24:161-7.
3. 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;196:123-34.
4. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology. 1999;213:889-94.
5. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs. mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299:2151-63, doi: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151.
6. Tohno E, Ueno E, Watanabe H. Ultrasound screening of breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2009;16:18-22, doi: 10.1007/s12282-008-0082-8.
7. Corseti V, Houssami M, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammographynegative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:539-44.
8. Leconte I, Fellah L. US and dense breasts: where do we stand. J Radiol. 2008;89:1169-79, doi: 10.1016/S0221-0363(08)73927-1.
9. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynki S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:177-82.
10. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US--diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology. 1998;207:191-9.
11. Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1260-5.
12. Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E. Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:1027-36, doi: 10.1007/ s00330-004-2593-9.
13. Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Nielsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management--follow-up and outcome. Radiology. 2008;248:773-81, doi: 10.1148/radiol.2483071786.
14. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berlière M, Berg BV, D'Hoore W, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1675-9.
15. Kubiak K, Parkes S, Fuchs WK, Saleh R. Exact evaluation of Diagnostic Test Resolution. Design Automatic Conference. Proceedings ACM-IEEE. 1992:347-52.
16. Brem RF, Ioffe M, Rapelyea JA, Yost KG, Weigert JM, Bertrand ML, et al. Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: Detection with Mammography, Sonography, MRI, and Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192:379-83, doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.3827.
17. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27, 825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225:165-75, doi: 10.1148/radiol.2251011667.
18. Skaane P, Endgedal K. Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170:109-14.
19. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Geller BM, Leung JW, Rosenberg RD, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. 2005; 235:775-90, doi: 10.1148/radiol.2353040738.
20. Graf O, Helbich TH, Fuchsjaeger MH, Hopf G, Morgun M, Graf C, et al. Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology. 2004;233:850-6, doi: 10.1148/radiol.2333031845.
21. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval and screen detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1081-7, doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081.
22. van Gils CH, Otten JD, Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH, Holland R. Effect of mammographic breast density on breast cancer screening performance: a study in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1998;52:267-71, doi: 10.1136/jech.52.4.267.
23. Ciatto S, Visioli C, Paci E, Zappa M. Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:393-6, doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601548.
24. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology. 2001;221:641-9, doi: 10. 1148/radiol.2213010364.
25. Brancato B, Bonardi R, Catarzi S, Iacconi C, Risso G, Taschini R, et al. Negligible advantages and excess costs of routine addition of breast ultrasonography to mammography in dense breasts. Tumori. 2007;93:562-6.
26. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. Am J Roentgen. 2003;180:941-8.
27. Berg W, Guttieres L, MessAiver M, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Mammography, Clinical Examination, US, and MR Imaging in Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830-49, doi: 10.1148/radiol.2333031484.
28. Bonardi R, Ambrogetti E, Ciatto S, Gentile E, Lazzari B, Martelino P, et al. Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screendetected lesions with low positive predictive value. Eur J Radiol. 2005;55:258-63, doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.10.006.
29. Skaane C, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K, et al. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study. Radiology. 2005;237:37-44, doi: 10. 1148/radiol.2371041605.
30. Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, O'Shaughnessy KF, Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Analysis of 172 Subtle Findings on Prior Normal Mammograms in Women with Breast Cancer Detected at Follow-up Screening. Radiology. 2003;226:494-503, doi: 10.1148/radiol.2262011634.
31. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3, 184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991;179:463-8.
32. Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andrea L, Salas D, Ruiz-Peralez F, Cuevas D, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology. 2001;219:475-83.
33. Calas MJG, Almeida RMVR, Gutfilen B, Pereira WCA, ''Intraobserver interpretation of breast ultrasonography following the BI-RADS classification,'' European Journal of Radiology. 2010;74:525-8, doi: 10.1016/j. ejrad.2009.04.015.