HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2251010999v1 225/1/176    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Moy, L. Articles by Kopans, D. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Moy, L. Articles by Kopans, D. B.

Specificity of Mammography and US in the Evaluation of a Palpable Abnormality: Retrospective Review¹

¹ From the Breast Imaging Center, New York University School of Medicine, 530 First Ave, FPT Suite 8N, New York, NY 10016-6497 (L.M.), and the Department of Breast Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (P.J.S., R.M., S.S. E.D.Y., K.A.M., D.H., M.S., E.A.R., E.H., D.B.K.). Received June 5, 2001; revision requested July 20; revision received January 23, 2002; accepted March 12. From the 1999 RSNA scientific assembly. Address correspondence to L.M. (e-mail: drlindamoy@aol.com).

PURPOSE: To determine the number of patients who received a diagnosis of breast cancer after having an area of clinical concern at presentation and combined negative mammographic and ultrasonographic (US) findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 4-year period, 829 patients with a palpable abnormality at presentation and combined negative mammographic and US findings were identified. The number of women who went on to receive a diagnosis of breast cancer was determined retrospectively. The authors searched the breast imaging database and the pathology database, sent a contact letter to the referring physicians, and linked their data to the State Cancer Registry. They also analyzed the breast parenchymal density among all patients who had more than 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS: Of the 829 women, 374 had follow-up information. Two-hundred thirty-three patients had negative imaging findings with more than 2 years of follow-up. The other 141 women were presumed to be cancer free, as they were not identified by the State Cancer Registry. Six (2.6%) of the 233 women had a diagnosis of breast cancer in the area of the palpable abnormality. The six cancers were diagnosed among the 156 women who had radiographically dense breast tissue (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3 or 4). Among the 77 women with predominantly fatty tissues, no cancers were diagnosed.

CONCLUSION: A negative mammographic and US finding of a palpable abnormality does not exclude breast cancer, but the likelihood of breast cancer is low, approximately 2.6%–2.7%. It may be higher if the breast tissues are dense and lower if they are predominantly fatty.

© RSNA, 2002

Index terms: Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.111, 00.12981 • Breast neoplasms, radiography, 00.111, 00.114 • Breast neoplasms, US, 00.12981

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, and E. B. Mendelson Operator Dependence of Physician-performed Whole-Breast US: Lesion Detection and Characterization. Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 355 - 365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Santen and R. Mansel Benign Breast Disorders N. Engl. J. Med., July 21, 2005; 353(3): 275 - 285. [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. A. Berg, L. Gutierrez, M. S. NessAiver, W. B. Carter, M. Bhargavan, R. S. Lewis, and O. B. Ioffe Diagnostic Accuracy of Mammography, Clinical Examination, US, and MR Imaging in Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer Radiology, December 1, 2004; 233(3): 830 - 849. [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]

				D. B. Kopans, N. Houssami, L. Irwig, and S. Blome Breast Imaging and the Symptomatic Patient: Enough with the "Diagnostic" Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2003; 181(5): 1423 - 1424. [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]

				W. A. Berg Rationale for a Trial of Screening Breast Ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666 Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2003; 180(5): 1225 - 1228. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S. Gerson and W. A. Berg Screening breast sonography Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2003; 180 (5): 1477 - 1478. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. K. Shetty, Y. P. Shah, and R. S. Sharman Prospective Evaluation of the Value of Combined Mammographic and Sonographic Assessment in Patients With Palpable Abnormalities of the Breast J. Ultrasound Med., March 1, 2003; 22(3): 263 - 268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]