Literature DB >> 16177414

Sonographically depicted breast clustered microcysts: is follow-up appropriate?

Wendie A Berg1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of lesions prospectively classified on breast sonography as clustered microcysts without a discrete solid component. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Over a 4-year interval during which 1,900 consecutive breast sonography examinations were obtained at the University of Maryland, 110 examinations (5.8%) yielded 123 lesions so classified. Sonography was performed by a physician using a linear-array broadband transducer (L7.5-12 or L7-13 MHz). Follow-up of at least 24 months was available for 66 lesions, and 14-gauge core biopsy was performed on another 13 lesions. The median patient age was 48 years (range, 32-71 years), and the median lesion size was 8 mm (range, 5-30 mm).
RESULTS: Of the 79 lesions with acceptable follow-up, all were depicted sonographically, 57 (72%) were seen mammographically, and four (5%) were palpable. Of the 13 lesions biopsied, five (38%) showed apocrine metaplasia; five (38%), fibrocystic changes; two (15%), cysts; and one (8%), a microscopic fibroadenoma and cysts. Of the 66 lesions with 2-year follow-up, 35 (53%) were stable, 15 (23%) had resolved, 12 (18%) decreased, and four (6%) minimally increased at 1 year and were then stable (n = 2) or decreased (n = 2) after 2 subsequent years. Fusion of several small cystic spaces was seen in one (2%) of the lesions followed.
CONCLUSION: Breast clustered microcysts are relatively common, seen in 5.8% of breast sonograms. In our series of 79 lesions with follow-up, none proved malignant: Follow-up on an annual basis appears reasonable for most such lesions. Validation of this approach across multiple centers is needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16177414     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.04.0929

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  8 in total

1.  Category assessment based on 3D volume data acquired by automated breast ultrasonography.

Authors:  Mitsuhiro Tozaki; Eisuke Fukuma
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 2.  Cystic breast masses and the ACRIN 6666 experience.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Alan G Sechtin; Helga Marques; Zheng Zhang
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.303

3.  Axial-shear strain imaging for differentiating benign and malignant breast masses.

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

Review 4.  BI-RADS 3 on Screening Breast Ultrasound: What Is It and What Is the Appropriate Management?

Authors:  Wendie A Berg
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2021-08-15

5.  Multiple bilateral circumscribed masses at screening breast US: consider annual follow-up.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Zheng Zhang; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial.

Authors:  Richard G Barr; Zheng Zhang; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Breast contrast-enhanced ultrasound: is a scoring system feasible? A preliminary study in China.

Authors:  Xiaoyun Xiao; Bing Ou; Haiyun Yang; Huan Wu; Baoming Luo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Contrast ultrasound versus ultrasound elastography for diagnosis of breast lumps: A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Wei Zhao; Kaituo Yan; Yingying Liu; Zaibin Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 1.817

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.