Literature DB >> 8029411

Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient.

E A Sickles1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether lesion size and patient age should prompt immediate biopsy of selected nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid (probably benign) breast masses, which otherwise would be managed with periodic mammographic surveillance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive cases of probably benign breast masses were studied, for which mammographic surveillance was recommended prospectively. Patient age and lesion size were recorded, but age and size thresholds were not used as eligibility criteria. Clinical outcome, determined for each patient after 3 or 3 1/2 years of surveillance, was evaluated as a function of patient age and lesion size.
RESULTS: There were 1,403 study cases, among which 19 cancers were diagnosed (positive predictive value [PPV] = 1.4%). Only small differences were found in PPV for various patient-age and lesion-size subgroups. Even the subgroup with the highest PPV, which consisted of women aged 50 years and older, contained 60 benign masses for each cancer.
CONCLUSION: Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified (probably benign) breast masses should be managed with periodic mammographic surveillance regardless of lesion size and patient age.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8029411     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.192.2.8029411

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


  22 in total

1.  Malignant and benign breast masses on 3D US volumetric images: effect of computer-aided diagnosis on radiologist accuracy.

Authors:  Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Chintana Paramagul; Janet Bailey; Alexis V Nees; Caroline Blane
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-01-23       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Quantitative ultrasound analysis for classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast masses.

Authors:  Woo Kyung Moon; Chung-Ming Lo; Jung Min Chang; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Jeon-Hor Chen; Ruey-Feng Chang
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Comparison of visibility of circumscribed masses on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and 2D mammography: are circumscribed masses better visualized and assured of being benign on DBT?

Authors:  Kazuaki Nakashima; Takayoshi Uematsu; Takahiro Itoh; Kaoru Takahashi; Seiichirou Nishimura; Tomomi Hayashi; Takashi Sugino
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-05-28       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  The significance of circumscribed malignant mammographic masses in the surveillance of BRCA 1/2 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  R Kaas; R Kroger; J H C L Hendriks; A P E Besnard; W Koops; F A Pameijer; W Prevoo; C E Loo; S H Muller
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-04-09       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Clinical and diagnostic value of preoperative MR mammography and FDG-PET in suspicious breast lesions.

Authors:  C Walter; K Scheidhauer; A Scharl; U-J Goering; P Theissen; H Kugel; T Krahe; U Pietrzyk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-01-23       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  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

Review 8.  FDG PET and other imaging modalities in the primary diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions.

Authors:  K Scheidhauer; C Walter; M D Seemann
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-05-06       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  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

10.  Validation of results from knowledge discovery: mass density as a predictor of breast cancer.

Authors:  Ryan W Woods; Louis Oliphant; Kazuhiko Shinki; David Page; Jude Shavlik; Elizabeth Burnside
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 4.056

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.