| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 From the Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Division, Duke University Medical Center, Hospital South, Rm 24254, Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710. From the 2000 RSNA scientific assembly. Received August 13, 2001; revision requested September 19; revision received October 15; accepted October 31. Address correspondence to E.L.R. (e-mail: rosen017@mc.duke.edu).
PURPOSE: To determine whether systematically evaluated criteria for probably benign lesions were actually applied to lesions placed into that category.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the mammography database yielded 295 cases that were initially followed up with short-term interval mammography but eventually received a biopsy recommendation for the same breast. Of the 83 malignancies (81 patients) for which mammograms and pathology reports were available for review, 51 malignancies corresponded to the lesions for which short-term follow-up was recommended. Each case was retrospectively reviewed to determine whether the lesion followed up represented the subsequently diagnosed malignancy. Each lesion was characterized with appropriate Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System descriptors, based on the mammographic imaging available when short-term follow-up was first recommended. These characteristics were then used to determine if, in retrospect, the mammographic appearance met previously published criteria for probably benign lesions.
RESULTS: Of the 51 malignancies, 23 (45%) appeared mammographically as microcalcifications, 12 (24%) as masses, four (8%) as architectural distortion, and 12 (24%) as developing densities. None fulfilled strict criteria for a probably benign lesion when reviewed in retrospect. Forty-seven (92%) of 51 lesions had already demonstrated progression at the time of follow-up recommendation.
CONCLUSION: Short-term mammographic follow-up is often recommended for lesions that, in retrospect, do not fulfill established diagnostic criteria for probably benign lesions.
© RSNA, 2002
Index terms: Breast, 00.13 • Breast, biopsy, 00.1261 • Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.31 • Breast neoplasms, radiography, 00.113, 00.114, • Breast radiography, utilization, 00.113, 00.114
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. H. Shin, B.-K. Han, E. Y. Ko, Y. H. Choe, and S.-J. Nam Probably Benign Breast Masses Diagnosed by Sonography: Is There a Difference in the Cancer Rate According to Palpability? Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2009; 192(4): W187 - W191. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. A. Harvey, B. T. Nicholson, and M. A. Cohen Finding Early Invasive Breast Cancers: A Practical Approach Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 61 - 76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Skaane, S. Hofvind, and A. Skjennald Randomized Trial of Screen-Film versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading in Population-based Screening Program: Follow-up and Final Results of Oslo II Study Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 708 - 717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. MINIGH Mammographic Film Artifacts. Radiol. Technol., May 1, 2006; 77(5): 389M - 402M. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. S. Majid, E. S. de Paredes, R. D. Doherty, N. R. Sharma, and X. Salvador Missed Breast Carcinoma: Pitfalls and Pearls RadioGraphics, July 1, 2003; 23(4): 881 - 895. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
