Literature DB >> 10580971

Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation.

G Rahbar1, A C Sie, G C Hansen, J S Prince, M L Melany, H E Reynolds, V P Jackson, J W Sayre, L W Bassett.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10580971     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.213.3.r99dc20889

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  57 in total

Review 1.  Integration of breast imaging into cancer management.

Authors:  L J Esserman; D Wolverton; N Hylton
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.075

2.  Breast ultrasound image classification based on multiple-instance learning.

Authors:  Jianrui Ding; H D Cheng; Jianhua Huang; Jiafeng Liu; Yingtao Zhang
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Computer-aided classification of breast masses: performance and interobserver variability of expert radiologists versus residents.

Authors:  Swatee Singh; Jeff Maxwell; Jay A Baker; Jennifer L Nicholas; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Diagnostic value of virtual touch tissue imaging quantification for benign and malignant breast lesions with different sizes.

Authors:  Hui Liu; Li-Xia Zhao; Guang Xu; Ming-Hua Yao; Ai-Hong Zhang; Hui-Xiong Xu; Rong Wu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-08-15

5.  Optical tomography with ultrasound localization: initial clinical results and technical challenges.

Authors:  Quing Zhu
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2005-06

6.  Level set contouring for breast tumor in sonography.

Authors:  Yu-Len Huang; Yu-Ru Jiang; Dar-Ren Chen; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Solid breast mass characterisation: use of the sonographic BI-RADS classification.

Authors:  M Costantini; P Belli; C Ierardi; G Franceschini; G La Torre; L Bonomo
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2007-09-20       Impact factor: 3.469

8.  Growing BI-RADS category 3 lesions on follow-up breast ultrasound: malignancy rates and worrisome features.

Authors:  Su Min Ha; Eun Young Chae; Joo Hee Cha; Hee Jung Shin; Woo Jung Choi; Hak Hee Kim
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  B-mode ultrasound examination of canine mammary gland neoplastic lesions of small size (diameter < 2 cm).

Authors:  Iacopo Vannozzi; Matteo Tesi; Marta Zangheri; Viola Maria Innocenti; Alessandra Rota; Simonetta Citi; Alessandro Poli
Journal:  Vet Res Commun       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 2.459

10.  Quantitative assessment of in vivo breast masses using ultrasound attenuation and backscatter.

Authors:  Kibo Nam; James A Zagzebski; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.578

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.