Advertisement

Breast Ultrasound for the Evaluation of Benign Breast Disease

  • Matthew D. Burgess
  • Ethel L. O’NealEmail author
Ultrasound (M Hahn and M Shiemorteza, Section Editors)
  • 24 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Ultrasound

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Understandably, a great deal of research is dedicated to the identification of sonographic manifestations of malignant breast disease. However, recognition of clinical and imaging characteristics that support benign diagnoses is equally integral to accurate, cost-effective management of breast disease. Review of these characteristics is provided to enable more confident diagnosis and focused management.

Recent Findings

Advances in ultrasound utilization have extended its range to include screening and diagnosis. Coupled with updates to BI-RADS, current practices reflect the indispensable nature of ultrasound to breast disease diagnosis and management. Recognition of unique situations further enhances the value of exacting ultrasound performance and evaluation.

Summary

Best utilization of rapidly evolving ultrasound technology requires comprehensive knowledge of technique, lexicon, current practice patterns, and mastery of clinical and imaging manifestations of benign and malignant disease.

Keywords

Breast ultrasound Benign BI-RADS Pain 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The views expressed herein are those of the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

Compliance with Ethical Guidelines

Conflict of interest

Matthew D. Burgess and Ethel L. O’Neal each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Recently published papers of particular interest have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Joe BN, Sickles EA. The evolution of breast imaging: past to present. Radiology. 2014;273(2 Suppl):S23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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(1):123–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    •• Hooley RJ, Scoutt LM, Philpotts LE. Breast ultrasonography: state of the art. Radiology. 2013;268(3):642–59. Comprehensive review of current utilization of ultrasound including valuable guidance on image optimization. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for the Performance of a Breast Ultrasound Examination. Reston: American College of Radiology, 2016 (Resolution 38).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    • Sung JS. High-quality breast ultrasonography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2014;52(3):519–26. This paper provides a fundamental review of technical factors contributing to high quality ultrasound images. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baker JA, Soo MS. Breast US: assessment of technical quality and image interpretation. Radiology. 2002;223(1):229–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carpentier B, Hayward J, Strachowski L. Enhancing your acoustics: ultrasound image optimization of breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(7):1479–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Orsi C, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS breast imaging atlas. 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mercado CL. BI-RADS update. Radiol Clin N. Am. 2014;52(3):481–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    •• Rao AA, Feneis J, Lalonde C, Ojeda-Fournier H. A pictorial review of changes in the BI-RADS fifth edition. Radiographics. 2016;36(3):623–39. Excellent synopsis of changes and updates to the fifth edition of BI-RADS including easily referenced tables and imaging examples. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lehman CD, Lee AY, Lee CI. Imaging management of palpable breast abnormalities. AJR. 2014;203(5):1142–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chae EY, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Choi WJ, Kim HH. Reassessment and follow-up results of BI-RADS category 3 lesions detected on screening breast ultrasound. AJR. 2016;206(3):666–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    •• Ha SM, Chae EY, Cha JH, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Choi WJ. Association of BRCA mutation types, imaging features, and pathologic findings in patients with breast cancer with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. AJR. 2017;209(4):920–8. It is important to recognize that masses in patients with BRCA-1 mutations can present with seemingly benign features such as oval or round shape and a circumscribed margin. A lower index of suspicion and threshold for biopsy should be reserved for these patients. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee MV, Shaw HL, Chi T, Brazeal HA, Holley SO, Appleton CM. Palpable breast abnormalities in women under age 40. Breast J. 2018;24(5):798–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shah VI, Raju U, Chitale D, Deshpande V, Gregory N, Strand V. False-negative core needle biopsies of the breast: an analysis of clinical, radiologic, and pathologic findings in 27 consecutive cases of missed breast cancer. Cancer. 2003;97(8):1824–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cho SH, Park SH. Mimickers of breast malignancy on breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(11):2029–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soo MS, Rosen EL, Baker JA, Vo TT, Boyd BA. Negative predictive value of sonography with mammography in patients with palpable breast lesions. AJR. 2001;177(5):1167–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yao JP, Hao YZ, Chang Q, Geng CY, Chen Y, Zhao WP, et al. Value of ultrasonographic features for assessing malignant potential of complex cystic breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(4):699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Greenwood HI, Lee AY, Lobach IV, Carpentier BM, Freimanis RI, Strachowski LM. Clustered microcysts on breast ultrasound: what is an appropriate management recommendation? AJR. 2017;209(6):W395–9. Clustered microcysts on ultrasound carry an extremely low risk of malignancy and biopsy can be avoided after careful assessment. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ko KH, Hsu HH, Yu JC, Peng YJ, Tung HJ, Chu CM, et al. Non-mass-like breast lesions at ultrasonography: feature analysis and BI-RADS assessment. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(1):77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giess CS, Chesebro AL, Chikarmane SA. Ultrasound features of mammographic developing asymmetries and correlation with histopathologic findings. AJR. 2018;210(1):W29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Linda A, Zuiani C, Lorenzon M, Furlan A, Londero V, Machin P, et al. The wide spectrum of hyperechoic lesions of the breast. Clin Radiol. 2011;66(6):559–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Adrada B, Wu Y, Yang W. Hyperechoic lesions of the breast: radiologic-histopathologic correlation. AJR. 2013;200(5):W518–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meroni S, Moscovici O, Menna S, Renne G, Sosnovskikh I, Rossi V, et al. Ultrasound challenge: secondary breast angiosarcoma mimicking lipoma. Breast J. 2013;19(4):437–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nassar L, Issa G, Farah Z, El Zein Y, Berjawi G. Predictors of malignancy in hyperechoic breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med. 2016;35(4):783–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ozturk M, Polat AV, Bekci T, Sullu Y. Angiolipoma of the breast: multi-modality imaging findings. Breast J. 2016;22(6):698–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gao Y, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL. Echogenic breast masses at US: to biopsy or not to biopsy? Radiographics. 2013;33(2):419–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kalambo M, Whitman GJ. Right at the surface: skin and superficial lesions of the breast. Breast J. 2018;24(5):858–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barton MB, Elmore JG, Fletcher SW. Breast symptoms among women enrolled in a health maintenance organization: frequency, evaluation, and outcome. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(8):651–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leddy R, Irshad A, Zerwas E, Mayes N, Armeson K, Abid M, et al. Role of breast ultrasound and mammography in evaluating patients presenting with focal breast pain in the absence of a palpable lump. Breast J. 2013;19(6):582–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    •• Kushwaha AC, Shin K, Kalambo M, Legha R, Gerlach KE, Kapoor MM, et al. Overutilization of health care resources for breast pain. AJR. 2018;211(1):217–23. Breast pain is an extremely common presenting complaint which is not likely associated with underlying cancer. Evidence based imaing protocols should reduce overutilization. Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kalantari BN, Dauphine CE, Khalkhali I. The role of imaging in the evaluation of focal mastalgia. Breast J. 2013;19(6):569–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    •• National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis (Version 3.2018). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf. Accessed October 29, 2018. BSCR-16 outlines national guidelines for evaluating patients with breast pain. This very recent update includes reassurance for patients with cyclic, diffuse, non-focal pain and age appropriate diagnostic imaging based on clinical exam for patients with focal pain.
  34. 34.
    Vashi R, Hooley R, Butler R, Geisel J, Philpotts L. Breast imaging of the pregnant and lactating patient: imaging modalities and pregnancy-associated breast cancer. AJR. 2013;200(2):321–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tirada N, Dreizin D, Khati NJ, Akin EA, Zeman RK. Imaging pregnant and lactating patients. Radiographics. 2015;35(6):1751–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cheng L, Reddy V, Solmos G, Watkins L, Cimbaluk D, Bitterman P, et al. Mastitis, a radiographic, clinical, and histopathologic review. Breast J. 2015;21(4):403–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vashi R, Hooley R, Butler R, Geisel J, Philpotts L. Breast imaging of the pregnant and lactating patient: physiologic changes and common benign entities. AJR. 2013;200(2):329–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    David M, Handa P, Castaldi M. Predictors of outcomes in managing breast abscesses—a large retrospective single-center analysis. Breast J. 2018;24(5):755–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Couto LS, Glassman LM, Batista Abreu DC, Paes JF. Chronic galactocele. Breast J. 2016;22(4):471–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    • Pluguez-Turull CW, Nanyes JE, Quintero CJ, Alizai H, Mais DD, Kist KA, et al. Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: manifestations at multimodality imaging and pitfalls. Radiographics. 2018;38(2):330–56. In-depth overview of the presentation, diagnosis, and management of a rare, but difficult benign breast disease. Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nikolaev A, Blake CN, Carlson DL. Association between hyperprolactinemia and granulomatous mastitis. Breast J. 2016;22(2):224–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tseng YS, Liao YY, Hsu CC, Chen KT. Nonpuerperal mastitis acts as the initial presentation of pituitary prolactinoma. Breast J. 2016;22(6):697–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thapa A, Parakh A, Arora J, Goel RK. Lupus mastitis of the male breast. BJR Case Rep. 2016;2(2):20150290.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tan H, Li R, Peng W, Liu H, Gu Y, Shen X. Radiological and clinical features of adult non-puerperal mastitis. Br J Radiol. 2013;86(1024):20120657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pandey TS, Mackinnon JC, Bressler L, Millar A, Marcus EE, Ganschow PS. Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis–a prospective study of 49 women and treatment outcomes with steroid therapy. Breast J. 2014;20(3):258–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kasales CJ, Han B, Smith JS Jr, Chetlen AL, Kaneda HJ, Shereef S. Nonpuerperal mastitis and subareolar abscess of the breast. AJR. 2014;202(2):W133–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyNaval Medical Center San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations