Abstract
Screening mammography has been well established and is the modality of choice for screening for breast cancer in women who are at an average risk for cancer. False-positive mammographic findings are often cited as one of the limitations of mammographic screening. There is a clear need to reduce the number of biopsies of benign lesions. Some of the findings that lead to a biopsy recommendation are those with a low probability of cancer. A prospective study was undertaken by Sickles and others to evaluate mammographic findings that have a low likelihood for malignancy. The findings of that landmark study have been the basis of a probably benign assessment category.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology. 1991;178(1):155–8.
Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991;179:463–8.
Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology. 1992;184:409–14.
Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo L, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology. 2001;219:475–83.
Varas X, et al. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR. 2002;179:691–5.
Kuzmiak CM, Dancel R, Pisano E, Zeng D, Cole E, Koomen MA, McLelland R. Consensus review: a method of assessment of calcifications that appropriately undergo a six-month follow-up. Acad Radiol. 2006;13(5):621–9.
Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS. Malignant lesions initially subject to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology. 2002;223:221–3.
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;196:123–34.
Moon HJ, Kim MJ, Kwak JY, Kim EK. Probably benign breast lesions on ultrasonography: a retrospective review of ultrasonographic features and clinical factors affecting the BI-RADS categorization. Acta Radiol. 2010;51(4):375–82.
Kim EK, Ko KH, Oh KK, Kwak JY, You JK, Kim MJ, et al. Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:1209–15.
Park YM, Kim EK, Lee JH, Ryu JH, Han SS, Choi SJ, et al. Palpable breast masses with probably benign morphology at sonography: can biopsy be deferred? Acta Radiol. 2008;49:1104–11.
Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management– follow-up and outcome. Radiology. 2008;248:773–81.
Lee CI, Wells CJ, Bassett LW. Cost minimization analysis of ultrasound-guided diagnostic evaluation of probably benign breast lesions. Breast J. 2013;19(1):41–8.
Moon HJ, et al. Malignant lesions initially categorized as probably benign breast lesions: retrospective review of ultrasonographic, clinical and pathologic characteristics. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010;36(4):551–9.
Gruber R, et al. Histologic work-up of non-palpable breast lesions classified as probably benign at initial mammography and/or ultrasound (BI-RADS category 3). Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(3):398–403.
Jackson FI. Acceptability of periodic follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology. 1989;173:580–1.
Lindfors KK, O’Connor J, Acredolo CR, Liston SE. Short-interval follow-up mammography versus immediate core biopsy of benign breast lesions: assessment of patient stress. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171(1):55–8.
Hall FM. Follow-up of probably benign breast lesions. Radiology. 2000;217(1):303–5.
Sickles EA. Commentary on Dr Rubin’s viewpoint. Radiology. 1999;213:19–20.
Rubin E. Six-month follow-up: an alternative view. Radiology. 1999;213:15–8.
Wallis M, Tardivon A, Helbich T, Schreer I. Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:581–8.
Brett J, Austoker J, Ong G. Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multicentre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment. J Public Health Med. 1998;20:396–403.
Brett J, Austoker J. Women who are recalled for further investigations for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med. 2001;23:292–300.
Barr RG, Zhang Z, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Berg WA. Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial. Radiology. 2013;269(3):700–12.
Chen DR, Huang YL, Lin SH. Computer-aided diagnosis with textural features for breast lesions in sonograms. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2011;35(3):220–6.
Wu WJ, Moon WK. Ultrasound breast tumor image computer-aided diagnosis with texture and morphological features. Acta Radiol. 2008;15(7):873–80.
Buchbinder SS, Leichter IS, Lederman RB, Novak B, Bamberger PN, Sklair-Levy M, Yarmish G, Fields SI. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions. Radiology. 2004;230(3):820–3.
Shen WC, Chang RF, Moon MK. Computed aided classification system for breast ultrasound based on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007;33(11):1688–98.
Kim KG, Cho SW, Min SJ, Kim JH, Min BG, Bae KT. Computerized scheme for assessing ultrasonographic features of breast masses. Acad Radiol. 2005;12:58–66.
Moon WK, Lo CM, Chang JM, Huang CS, Chen JH, Chang RF. Quantitative ultrasound analysis for classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast masses. J Digit Imaging. 2013;111(1):84–92.
Moon WK, Lo CM, Cho N, Chang JM, Huang CS, Chen JH, Chang RF. Computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses using quantified BI-RADS findings. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2013;111(1):84–92.
Giess CS, Raza S, Birdwell RL. Distinguishing breast skin lesions from superficial breast parenchymal lesions: diagnostic criteria, imaging characteristics, and pitfalls. Radiographics. 2011;31(7):1959–72.
Graf O, Berg WA, Sickles EA. Large rodlike calcifications at mammography: analysis of morphologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):299–303.
Hogge JP, Robinson RE, Magnant CM, Zuurbier RA. The mammographic spectrum of fat necrosis of the breast. Radiographics. 1995;15(6):1347–56.
Bilgen IG, Ustun EE, Memis A. Fat necrosis of the breast: clinical, mammographic and sonographic features. Eur J Radiol. 2001;39(2):92–9.
Taboada JL, Stephens TW, Krishnamurthy S, Brandt KR, Whitman GJ. The many faces of fat necrosis in the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(3):815–25.
Brenin DR. Management of the palpable breast mass. In: Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Osborne CK, editors. Diseases of the breast. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004. p. 33–46.
Soo MS, Kornguth PJ, Hertzberg BS. Fat necrosis in the breast: sonographic features. Radiology. 1998;206:261–9.
Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology. 1999;213(3):889–94.
Linda A, Zuiani C, Lorenzon M, et al. Hyperechoic lesions of the breast: not always benign. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(5):1219–24.
Tilve A, Mallo R, Pérez A, Santiago P. Breast hemangiomas: correlation between imaging and pathologic findings. J Clin Ultrasound. 2012;40(8):512–7.
Mesurolle B. Sonographic and mammographic appearances of breast hemangioma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(1):W17–22.
Gao Y, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL. Echogenic breast masses at US: to biopsy or not to biopsy? Radiographics. 2013;33(2):419–34.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shetty, M.K. (2015). Probably Benign Abnormalities of the Breast. In: Shetty, M. (eds) Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1267-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1267-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1266-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1267-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)