Breast Imaging

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

Published Online:Dec 1 2004https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2333031845

Abstract

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.

References

1 Logan-Young W, Dawson AE, Wilbur DC, et al. The cost-effectiveness of fine needle aspiration cytology and 14-gauge core needle biopsy compared with open surgical biopsy in the diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Cancer 1998; 82:1867-1873.
Medline Google Scholar
2 Liberman L. Percutaneous image-guided core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am 2002; 40:483-500.
Medline Google Scholar
3 Liberman L, Feng TL, Dershaw DD, et al. Ultrasound-guided core breast biopsy: utility and cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1998; 208:717-723.
Google Scholar
4 Lee CH, Egglin TIK, Philpotts LE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic core needle biopsy: analysis by means of mammographic findings. Radiology 1997; 202:849-854.
Google Scholar
5 Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Surveillance mammography and stereotactic core breast biopsy for probably benign lesions: a cost comparison analysis. Acad Radiol 1997; 4:419-425.
Medline Google Scholar
6 Perdue P, Page D, Nellestein M, Salem C, Galbo C, Gosh B. Early detection of breast carcinoma: a comparison of palpable and nonpalpable lesions. Surgery 1992; 111:656-659.
Medline Google Scholar
7 Meyer JE, Kopans DB, Stomper PC, et al. Occult breast abnormalities: percutaneous preoperative needle localization. Radiology 1984; 150:335-337.
Google Scholar
8 Gisvold JJ, Martin JK, Jr. Prebiopsy localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984; 143:477-481.
Medline Google Scholar
9 Rosenberg AL, Schwartz GF, Feig SA, Patchefsky AS. Clinically occult breast lesions: localization and significance. Radiology 1987; 162:167-170.
Google Scholar
10 Moskowitz M. Positive predictive values for mammographically detected carcinomas (letter). AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158:688-689.
Medline Google Scholar
11 Sickles EA. Management of probably benign breast lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 1995; 33:1123-1130.
Medline Google Scholar
12 Sickles EA. Probably benign lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol? Radiology 1999; 213:11-14.
Google Scholar
13 Feig SA. Breast masses. Mammographic and sonographic evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:67-92.
Medline Google Scholar
14 Hall FM. Follow-up of probably benign breast lesions. Radiology 2000; 217:303-305.
Google Scholar
15 American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1998.
Google Scholar
16 Sickles EA. Periodic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179:463-468.
Google Scholar
17 Adler DD, Helvie MA, Ikeda DM. Nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesions: follow-up strategies after initial detection on mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 155:1195-1201.
Medline Google Scholar
18 Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991; 178:155-158.
Google Scholar
19 Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Non-palpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:409-414.
Medline Google Scholar
20 Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo L, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001; 219:475-483.
Google Scholar
21 Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:691-695.
Medline Google Scholar
22 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; 196:123-134.
Google Scholar
23 Dennis MA, Parker SH, Klaus AJ, Stavros AT, Kaske TI, Clark SB. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump. Radiology 2001; 219:186-191.
Google Scholar
24 Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R, et al. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology 2002; 225:176-181.
Google Scholar
25 Soo MS, Rosen EL, Baker JA, Vo TT, Boyd BA. Negative predictive value of sonography with mammography in patients with palpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:1167-1170.
Medline Google Scholar
26 Kaiser JS, Helvie MA, Blacklaw RL, Roubidoux MA. Palpable breast thickening; role of mammography and US in cancer detection. Radiology 2002; 223:839-844.
Google Scholar
27 Donegan WL. Evaluation of a palpable breast mass. N Engl J Med 1992; 327:937-942.
Medline Google Scholar
28 Sickles EA, Parker SH. Appropriate role of core breast biopsy in the management of probably benign lesions (editorial). Radiology 1993; 188:315.
Google Scholar
29 Dawson AE, Mulford DK, Taylor AS, Logan-Young W. Breast carcinoma in women age 35 years and younger: mammography and diagnosis by fine-needle aspiration cytology. Cancer 1998; 84:163-168.
Medline Google Scholar
30 Somers RG, Sandler GL, Kaplan MJ, Najjar D, Anderson AV, Cohen MH. Palpable abnormalities of the breast not requiring excisional biopsy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992; 175:325-328.
Medline Google Scholar
31 Morris KT, Pommier RF, Morris A, et al. Usefulness of the triple test score for palpable breast masses. Arch Surg 2001; 136:1008-1012.
Medline Google Scholar
32 Homer MJ. Imaging features and management of characteristically benign and probably benign breast lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 1987; 25:939-951.
Medline Google Scholar
33 Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999; 213:889-894.
Google Scholar
34 Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dunser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173:921-927.
Medline Google Scholar
35 Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS. Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 2002; 223:221-228.
Google Scholar
36 Hall FM. Malignancy in BI-RADS category 3 mammographic lesions (letter). Radiology 2002; 225:918-919.
Google Scholar
37 Rosen EL. Malignancy in BI-RADS category 3 mammographic lesions: Dr Rosen responds (letter). Radiology 2002; 225:919-920.
Google Scholar
38 Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, Chen HH, Prevost T. The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer 1999; 86:449-462.
Medline Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Dec 2004

Vol. 233, No. 3

Metrics

Altmetric Score

PDF download