OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sonography can be used to categorize some solid breast masses as probably benign so that biopsy can be deferred. METHODS: We prospectively characterized 844 sonographically visible solid breast masses referred for biopsy. Mammographic and sonographic features of the masses were recorded, and all masses were categorized by American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification before biopsy. Of the 844 masses, 148 were categorized as probably benign (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3). Sonographically guided biopsy (n = 804) or fine-needle aspiration (n = 40) was performed for pathologic correlation. RESULTS: Of the 148 masses that met the sonographic criteria for probably benign masses, there was 1 malignancy, for a negative predictive value of 99.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up can be an acceptable alternative to biopsy for sonographically probably benign solid masses.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sonography can be used to categorize some solid breast masses as probably benign so that biopsy can be deferred. METHODS: We prospectively characterized 844 sonographically visible solid breast masses referred for biopsy. Mammographic and sonographic features of the masses were recorded, and all masses were categorized by American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification before biopsy. Of the 844 masses, 148 were categorized as probably benign (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3). Sonographically guided biopsy (n = 804) or fine-needle aspiration (n = 40) was performed for pathologic correlation. RESULTS: Of the 148 masses that met the sonographic criteria for probably benign masses, there was 1 malignancy, for a negative predictive value of 99.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up can be an acceptable alternative to biopsy for sonographically probably benign solid masses.
Authors: Amy Lynn Conners; Carrie B Hruska; Cindy L Tortorelli; Robert W Maxwell; Deborah J Rhodes; Judy C Boughey; Wendie A Berg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jimena Olveres; Germán González; Fabian Torres; José Carlos Moreno-Tagle; Erik Carbajal-Degante; Alejandro Valencia-Rodríguez; Nahum Méndez-Sánchez; Boris Escalante-Ramírez Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-08
Authors: Emel Durmaz; Murat Alp Öztek; Hatice Arıöz Habibi; Uğur Kesimal; Hakkı Timur Sindel Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2017 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Haiyan Xu; Min Rao; Tomy Varghese; Amy Sommer; Sara Baker; Timothy J Hall; Gale A Sisney; Elizabeth S Burnside Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Eduardo F C Fleury; Jose F Rinaldi; Sebastiao Piato; Jose Carlos V Fleury; Decio Roveda Junior Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-01-22 Impact factor: 5.315