"skipMainNavigation"
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
Previous
Next
Breast Imaging

Benign versus Malignant Solid Breast Masses: US Differentiation

Published Online:Dec 1 1999https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.213.3.r99dc20889

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the general applicability and interobserver variability of ultrasonographic (US) features in differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred sixty-two consecutive solid masses with a tissue diagnosis were reviewed. Three radiologists reviewed the masses without knowledge of clinical history or histologic examination results.

RESULTS: US features that most reliably characterize masses as benign were a round or oval shape (67 of 71 [94%] were benign), circumscribed margins (95 of 104 [91%] were benign), and a width-to–anteroposterior (AP) dimension ratio greater than 1.4 (82 of 92 [89%] were benign). Features that characterize masses as malignant included irregular shape (19 of 31 [61%] were malignant), microlobulated (four of six [67%] were malignant) or spiculated (two of three [67%] were malignant) margins, and width-to–AP dimension ratio of 1.4 or less (28 of 70 [40%] were malignant). If the three most reliable criteria had been strictly applied by each radiologist, the overall cancer biopsy yield would have increased (from 23% to 39%) by 16%. When US images and mammograms were available, the increase in biopsy yield contributed by US was not statistically significant (2%, P = .73). However, in independent reviews, one to three reviewers interpreted four carcinomas as benign at US.

CONCLUSION: The data confirm that certain US features can help differentiate benign from malignant masses. However, practice and interpreter variability should be further explored before these criteria are generally applied to defer biopsy of solid masses.

References

  • 1 Howard J. Using mammography for cancer control: an unrealized potential. Cancer 1987; 33:33-48.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Miller AB. The costs and benefits of breast cancer screening. Am J Prev Med 1993; 9:175-180.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 3 Fletcher SW. Why question screening mammography for women in their forties?. Radiol Clin North Am 1995; 33:1259-1271.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 4 Hilton SW, Leopold GR, Olson LK, Willson SA. Real-time breast sonography: application in 300 consecutive patients. AJR 1986; 147:479-486.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 5 Rubin E, Miller VE, Berland LL, Han SY, Koehler RE, Stanley RJ. Hand-held real-time breast sonography. AJR 1985; 144:623-627.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 6 Cole-Beuglet C, Soriano RZ, Kurth AB, Goldberg BB. Ultrasound mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 1980; 18:133-143.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 7 Cole-Beuglet C, Soriano RZ, Kurth AB, Goldberg BB. Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonomammography correlated with pathology in 122 patients. AJR 1983; 140:369-375.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 8 Egan RL, Egan KL. Automated water-path full-breast sonography: correlation with histology of 176 solid lesions. AJR 1984; 143:499-507.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 9 Sickles EA, Filly FA, Callen PW. Breast cancer detection with ultrasonography and mammography: comparison using state-of-the-art equipment. AJR 1983; 140:843-845.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 10 Kopans DB, Meyer JE, Lindfords KK. Whole-breast US imaging: 4-year follow-up. Radiology 1985; 157:505-507.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Bassett LW, Kimme-Smith C, Sutherland LK, Gold RH, Sarti D, King W, III. Automated and hand-held breast US: effect on patient management. Radiology 1987; 165:103-108.
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Fornage BD, Lorigan JG, Andry E. Fibroadenoma of the breast: US appearance. Radiology 1989; 172:671-675.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 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
  • 14 Jackson VP. Management of solid breast nodules: what is the role of sonography?. Radiology 1995; 196:14-15.
    Google Scholar
  • 15 American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) 2nd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1995.
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Agresti A. Categorical data analysis New York, NY: Wiley, 1990; 366-368.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Jackson VP. The current role of ultrasonography in breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 1995; 33:1161-1170.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 18 Fornage BD, Coan JD, David CL. Ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of the breast and other interventional procedures. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:167-185.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 19 Parker SH, Jobe WE, Dennis MA, et al. US-guided automated large-core breast biopsy. Radiology 1993; 187:507-511.
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Bassett LW, Ysrael M, Gold RH, Ysrael C. Usefulness of mammography and sonography in women less than 35 years of age. Radiology 1991; 180:831-835.
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US—diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998; 207:191-199.
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Evans WP. Breast masses: appropriate evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am 1995; 33:1085-1108.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 23 National Cancer Institute Fine-Needle Aspiration of Breast Workshop Subcommittees. The uniform approach to breast fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Diagn Cytopathol 1997; 16:295-311.
    Medline Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Dec 1999