Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Varas, X.
Right arrow Articles by Leborgne, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Varas, X.
Right arrow Articles by Leborgne, J. H.

Radiology, Vol 184, 409-414, Copyright © 1992 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography

X Varas, F Leborgne and JH Leborgne
Institute of Radiology, Hospital Pereira Rossell, Montevideo, Uruguay.

Of 21,855 consecutive women prospectively studied with mammography, physical examination, and high-resolution ultrasonography when appropriate, 558 received a diagnosis of nonpalpable, probably benign lesions. Follow-up mammography was recommended for these patients. Characteristically benign lesions and palpable masses were excluded from analysis. The positive predictive value for detection of a nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesion was 0.017. Nine patients ultimately proved to have carcinoma; two of them had noninvasive carcinoma, and two had axillary node metastases. The positive predictive value for detection of a nonpalpable, probably malignant lesion was 0.47. The policy of recommending mammographic surveillance for nonpalpable, probably benign lesions, a viable option for radiologists, has the capability of lowering the rate and therefore the costs of biopsy procedures with negative results.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. Raza, S. A. Chikarmane, S. S. Neilsen, L. M. Zorn, and R. L. Birdwell
BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 Lesions: Value of US in Management--Follow-up and Outcome
Radiology, September 1, 2008; 248(3): 773 - 781.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
E. J. A. Bowles, D. L. Miglioretti, E. A. Sickles, L. Abraham, P. A. Carney, B. C. Yankaskas, and J. G. Elmore
Accuracy of Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammograms by Patient and Radiologist Characteristics
Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1200 - 1208.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
C. D. Lehman, C. M. Rutter, P. R. Eby, E. White, D. S. M. Buist, and S. H. Taplin
Lesion and Patient Characteristics Associated with Malignancy After a Probably Benign Finding on Community Practice Mammography
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 511 - 515.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
O. Graf, T. H. Helbich, G. Hopf, C. Graf, and E. A. Sickles
Probably Benign Breast Masses at US: Is Follow-up an Acceptable Alternative to Biopsy?
Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 87 - 93.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. S. Burnside, J. E. Ochsner, K. J. Fowler, J. P. Fine, L. R. Salkowski, D. L. Rubin, and G. A. Sisney
Use of Microcalcification Descriptors in BI-RADS 4th Edition to Stratify Risk of Malignancy
Radiology, February 1, 2007; 242(2): 388 - 395.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Board Fam MedHome page
M. M. Eberl, C. H. Fox, S. B. Edge, C. A. Carter, and M. C. Mahoney
BI-RADS Classification for Management of Abnormal Mammograms
J Am Board Fam Med, March 1, 2006; 19(2): 161 - 164.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. A. Berg
Sonographically Depicted Breast Clustered Microcysts: Is Follow-Up Appropriate?
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 952 - 959.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
F. M. Hall, E. A. Sickles, C. Lehman, R. Smith-Bindman, B. C. Yankaskas, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, and K. Kerlikowske
Short-Interval Follow-up in Screening Mammography * Dr Sickles and colleagues respond:
Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 371 - 373.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
A. K. Koskela, M. Sudah, M. H. Berg, V. J. Karja, P. K. Mustonen, V. Kataja, and R. S. Vanninen
Add-on Device for Stereotactic Core-Needle Breast Biopsy: How Many Biopsy Specimens Are Needed for a Reliable Diagnosis?
Radiology, September 1, 2005; 236(3): 801 - 809.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, L. A. Abraham, C. D. Lehman, B. C. Yankaskas, R. Ballard-Barbash, W. E. Barlow, J. H. Voeks, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, et al.
Breast Cancer Yield for Screening Mammographic Examinations with Recommendation for Short-Interval Follow-up
Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 684 - 692.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
M. B. Mainiero, A. Goldkamp, E. Lazarus, L. Livingston, S. L. Koelliker, B. Schepps, and W. W. Mayo-Smith
Characterization of Breast Masses With Sonography: Can Biopsy of Some Solid Masses Be Deferred?
J. Ultrasound Med., February 1, 2005; 24(2): 161 - 167.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
O. Graf, T. H. Helbich, M. H. Fuchsjaeger, G. Hopf, M. Morgun, C. Graf, R. Mallek, and E. A. Sickles
Follow-up of Palpable Circumscribed Noncalcified Solid Breast Masses at Mammography and US: Can Biopsy Be Averted?
Radiology, December 1, 2004; 233(3): 850 - 856.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
A. Mendez, F. Cabanillas, M. Echenique, K. Malekshamran, I. Perez, and E. Ramos
Mammographic features and correlation with biopsy findings using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVABB)
Ann. Onc., March 1, 2004; 15(3): 450 - 454.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. S. Buchbinder, I. S. Leichter, R. B. Lederman, B. Novak, P. N. Bamberger, M. Sklair-Levy, G. Yarmish, and S. I. Fields
Computer-aided Classification of BI-RADS Category 3 Breast Lesions
Radiology, March 1, 2004; 230(3): 820 - 823.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
P. B. Gordon, F. A. Gagnon, and L. Lanzkowsky
Solid Breast Masses Diagnosed as Fibroadenoma at Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy: Acceptable Rates of Growth at Long-term Follow-up
Radiology, October 1, 2003; 229(1): 233 - 238.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, B.-M. Ljung, and D. Grady
Evaluation of Abnormal Mammography Results and Palpable Breast Abnormalities
Ann Intern Med, August 19, 2003; 139(4): 274 - 284.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
W. A. Berg, C. I. Campassi, and O. B. Ioffe
Cystic Lesions of the Breast: Sonographic-Pathologic Correlation
Radiology, April 1, 2003; 227(1): 183 - 191.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, and E. A. Sickles
Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammography: Are We Doing the Right Thing?
J Natl Cancer Inst, March 19, 2003; 95(6): 418 - 419.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
S. Yasmeen, P. S. Romano, M. Pettinger, R. T. Chlebowski, J. A. Robbins, D. S. Lane, and S. L. Hendrix
Frequency and Predictive Value of a Mammographic Recommendation for Short-Interval Follow-Up
J Natl Cancer Inst, March 19, 2003; 95(6): 429 - 436.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
F. M. Hall and E. L. Rosen
Malignancy in BI-RADS Category 3 Mammographic Lesions * Dr Rosen responds:
Radiology, December 1, 2002; 225(3): 918 - 920.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
R. J. Brenner, R. J. Jackman, S. H. Parker, W. P. Evans III, L. Philpotts, B. M. Deutch, M. C. Lechner, D. Lehrer, P. Sylvan, R. Hunt, et al.
Percutaneous Core Needle Biopsy of Radial Scars of the Breast: When Is Excision Necessary?
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2002; 179(5): 1179 - 1184.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
X. Varas, J. H. Leborgne, F. Leborgne, J. Mezzera, S. Jaumandreu, and F. Leborgne
Revisiting the Mammographic Follow-Up of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2002; 179(3): 691 - 695.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. L. Rosen, J. A. Baker, and M. S. Soo
Malignant Lesions Initially Subjected to Short-term Mammographic Follow-up
Radiology, April 1, 2002; 223(1): 221 - 228.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
I. Vizcaíno, L. Gadea, L. Andreo, D. Salas, F. Ruiz-Perales, D. Cuevas, C. Herranz, and F. Bueno
Short-term Follow-up Results in 795 Nonpalpable Probably Benign Lesions Detected at Screening Mammography
Radiology, May 1, 2001; 219(2): 475 - 483.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
K. E. Dee and E. A. Sickles
Medical Audit of Diagnostic Mammography Examinations: Comparison with Screening Outcomes Obtained Concurrently
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2001; 176(3): 729 - 733.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
R. J. Brenner, L. W. Bassett, L. L. Fajardo, D. D. Dershaw, W. P. Evans III, R. Hunt, C. Lee, I. Tocino, P. Fisher, M. McCombs, et al.
Stereotactic Core-Needle Breast Biopsy: A Multi-institutional Prospective Trial
Radiology, March 1, 2001; 218(3): 866 - 872.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. P. Poplack, A. N. Tosteson, M. R. Grove, W. A. Wells, and P. A. Carney
Mammography in 53,803 Women from the New Hampshire Mammography Network
Radiology, December 1, 2000; 217(3): 832 - 840.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
F. M. Hall and E. A. Sickles
Follow-up of Probably Benign Breast Lesions Dr Sickles responds:
Radiology, October 1, 2000; 217(1): 303 - 305.
[Full Text]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. A. Berg, C. Campassi, P. Langenberg, and M. J. Sexton
Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: Inter- and Intraobserver Variability in Feature Analysis and Final Assessment
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2000; 174(6): 1769 - 1777.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
L. Liberman
Percutaneous Imaging-Guided Core Breast Biopsy: State of the Art at the Millennium
Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2000; 174(5): 1191 - 1199.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
H. M. Zonderland, E. G. Coerkamp, J. Hermans, M. J. van de Vijver, and A. E. van Voorthuisen
Diagnosis of Breast Cancer: Contribution of US as an Adjunct to Mammography
Radiology, November 1, 1999; 213(2): 413 - 422.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. A. Sickles
Probably Benign Breast Lesions: When Should Follow-up Be Recommended and What Is the Optimal Follow-up Protocol?
Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 11 - 14.
[Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. Rubin
Six-month Follow-up: An Alternative View
Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 15 - 18.
[Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. G. Orel, N. Kay, C. Reynolds, and D. C. Sullivan
BI-RADS Categorization As a Predictor of Malignancy
Radiology, June 1, 1999; 211(3): 845 - 850.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 BMJHome page
L. E M Duijm, G. L Guit, J. H C L Hendriks, J. O M Zaat, and W. P T M Mali
Value of breast imaging in women with painful breasts: observational follow up study
BMJ, November 28, 1998; 317(7171): 1492 - 1495.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1992 by the Radiological Society of North America.