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


     


Published online before print October 14, 2004, 10.1148/radiol.2333031845
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2333031845v1
233/3/850    most recent
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 Graf, O.
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Graf, O.
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
(Radiology 2004;233:850-856.)
© RSNA, 2004


Breast Imaging

Follow-up of Palpable Circumscribed Noncalcified Solid Breast Masses at Mammography and US: Can Biopsy Be Averted?1

Oswald Graf, MD, Thomas H. Helbich, MD, Michael H. Fuchsjaeger, MD, Gottfried Hopf, MD, Margarita Morgun, MD, Claudia Graf, PhD, Reinhold Mallek, MD and Edward A. Sickles, MD

1 From the Institute of Radiology, Ambulatory Care Center Steyr, Stadtplatz 30, A-4400 Steyr, Austria (O.G., G.H., M.M., C.G.); Department of Radiology, University of Vienna, Austria (T.H.H., M.H.F., R.M.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Medical Center, San Francisco (E.A.S.). Received November 17, 2003; revision requested February 5, 2004; revision received February 27; accepted April 16. Address correspondence to O.G. (e-mail: oswald.graf@utanet.at).

PURPOSE: To determine whether palpable noncalcified solid breast masses with benign morphology at mammography and ultrasonography (US) can be managed similarly to nonpalpable probably benign lesions (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] category 3)—that is, with periodic imaging surveillance—and to determine whether biopsy can be averted in these lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: No institutional review board approval or patient consent was required. This retrospective analysis, based on final imaging reports, included 152 patients (age range, 28–77 years; mean age, 48.3 years) with 157 palpable noncalcified solid masses that were classified as probably benign at initial mammography and US. Of 152 patients, 108 underwent follow-up with mammography and US (6-month intervals for 2 years, then 12-month intervals). The remaining 44 patients underwent surgical or needle biopsy after initial imaging. Lesions were analyzed at initial and follow-up examinations. Statistical analysis included Student t test and corresponding exact 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS: In 108 patients who underwent follow-up only, 112 lesions were palpable. In 102 (94.4%) of 108 patients, masses remained stable during follow-up. Lesions were followed for at least 2 years (mean, 4.1 years; range, 2–7 years). In six (5.6%) patients, palpable lesions increased in size during follow-up; these lesions were benign at subsequent open biopsy. No breast carcinoma was diagnosed in the 44 patients with 45 palpable lesions who underwent biopsy after initial imaging. Of 157 lesions, no malignant tumors were observed (exact one-sided 95% confidence interval: 0%, 1.95%).

CONCLUSION: The data strongly suggest that palpable noncalcified solid breast masses with benign morphology at mammography and US can be managed similarly to nonpalpable BI-RADS category 3 lesions, with short-term follow-up (6-month intervals for 2 years). More data, based on a larger series, are required to determine whether this conclusion is correct.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Breast, biopsy, 00.1261 • Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.31 • Breast neoplasms, radiography, 00.11 • Breast neoplasms, US, 00.1298




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
B. Mesurolle, V. Sygal, L. Lalonde, A. Lisbona, M.-P. Dufresne, J. H. Gagnon, and E. Kao
Sonographic and Mammographic Appearances of Breast Hemangioma
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2008; 191(1): W17 - W22.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
E.-K. Kim, K. H. Ko, K. K. Oh, J. Y. Kwak, J. K. You, M. J. Kim, and B.-W. Park
Clinical Application of the BI-RADS Final Assessment to Breast Sonography in Conjunction with Mammography
Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1209 - 1215.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. Sklair-Levy, T. Sella, T. Alweiss, I. Craciun, E. Libson, and B. Mally
Incidence and Management of Complex Fibroadenomas
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2008; 190(1): 214 - 218.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
J. Y. Kwak, E.-K. Kim, H.-L. Park, J.-Y. Kim, and K. K. Oh
Application of the breast imaging reporting and data system final assessment system in sonography of palpable breast lesions and reconsideration of the modified triple test.
J. Ultrasound Med., October 1, 2006; 25(10): 1255 - 1261.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
M. Costantini, P. Belli, R. Lombardi, G. Franceschini, A. Mule, and L. Bonomo
Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon.
J. Ultrasound Med., May 1, 2006; 25(5): 649 - 659.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The OncologistHome page
M. Guray and A. A. Sahin
Benign breast diseases: classification, diagnosis, and management.
Oncologist, May 1, 2006; 11(5): 435 - 449.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]