Ultrasound of the Breast, Including Interventions: An Update

  • Alexander Mundinger


The quality of breast ultrasound (US) has constantly improved over recent decades. New transducer technology using high frequencies between 7 and 18 MHz are the physical base for a high spatial resolution. Advances in imaging techniques eliminate speckles and artefacts and improve contrast resolution. International standards are in place for examination technique, description of findings and assessment categories. Future automated volume scanning promises to reduce the problems of operator dependence. US is the breast imaging method of choice for most patients with clinical signs and symptoms. The sensitivity of standard US for breast cancer ranges from 55% to 95%. It transfers an additional diagnostic yield of 30–40% in comparison with mammography to patients with radiodense breasts. US improves detection and characterisation of lesions in preoperative staging and in patients under surveillance after breast cancer. US is inferior to mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the primary detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and does not add information compared with MRI in familiar breast cancer. To date, US has no role in population- based screening due to a lack of prospective and randomised data. US-guided core needle biopsy is the minimally invasive biopsy method of choice for all breast lesions that correlate with findings of other imaging modalities. Sensitivity of US-guided large-core needle biopsy is 93–98%; specificity ranges from 95% to 100%.


Terminal Duct Lobular Unit Complicated Cyst Improve Contrast Resolution Additional Diagnostic Yield Primary Axillary Lymph Node Dissection 
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.


  1. 1.
    Stavros AT (2003) Breast ultrasound. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, pp 56–108Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Madjar H, Mendelson E (2008) The practice of breast ultrasound, 2nd edn. Thieme, Stuttgart, New York, pp 23–69Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mundinger A, Wilson ARM, Weismann C et al (2010) Breast ultrasound — update. EJC Supplements 8:11–14Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weismann C, Hergan K (2007) Current status of 3D/4D volume ultrasound of the breast. Ultraschall Med 28:273–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American College of Radiology (ACR) (2009) Practice guideline for the performance of ultrasound-guided percutaneous breast interventional procedures. Revised 2009.
  6. 6.
    American College of Radiology (ACR) (2009) Practice guideline for the performance of stereotactically guided breast interventional procedures. Revised 2009. Res. 28.
  7. 7.
    Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M et al (2009) Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 9:335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Schreer I, Heindel et al (2008) Imaging studies for the early detection of breast cancer. Dtsch Arztebl Int 105:541–547PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Madjar H, Rickard M, Jellins J et al (1999) IBUS guidelines for the ultrasonic examination of the breast. Eur J Ultrasound 9:99–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khouri NF (2009) Breast ultrasound. In: Harris JR et al (eds) Diseases of the breast, 4th edn. Wolter Kluwer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, pp 131–151Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) ACR BI-RADS® — Ultrasound. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Breast imaging atlas. American College of Radiology, Reston VAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Madjar H, Ohlinger R, Mundinger A et al (2006) BI-RADS-analogue DEGUM criteria for findings in breast ultrasound — Consensus of the DEGUM Committee on Breast Ultrasound. Ultraschall Med 27(4):374–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Weber S et al (2010) Multicenter study of ultrasound real-time tissue elastography in 779 cases for the assessment of breast lesions: improved diagnostic performance by combining the BI-RADS®-US classification system with sonoelastography. Ultraschall Med 31:484–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps et al (2006) BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 239:385–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ et al (2008) Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 65:293–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Santana Montesdeoca JM, Gómez Arnáiz A, Fuentes Pavón R et al (2009) Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver variability in the BI-RADS ultrasound system. Radiologia 51:477–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M et al (2009) Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology 25:2665–2672Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berg WA, Sechtin AG, Marques H et al (2010) Cystic breast masses and the ACRIN 6666 experience. Radiol Clin North Am 48:931–987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G et al (2007) Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology 244:87–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fu CY, Hsu HH, Yu JC et al (2010) Influence of age on PPV of sonographic BI-RADS categories 3, 4, and 5. Ultraschall Med 32:8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moon HJ, Kim MJ, Kwak JY et al (2010). Probably benign breast lesions on ultrasonography: a retrospective review of ultrasonographic features and clinical factors affecting the BI-RADS categorization. Acta Radiol 51:375–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moon HJ, Kim MJ, Kwak JY et al (2010) Malignant lesions initially categorized as probably benign breast lesions: retrospective review of ultrasonographic, clinical and pathologic characteristics. Ultrasound Med Biol 36:551–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mundinger A (2006) Staging the breast and axilla. EJC Supplements 4:35–37Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lehman CD, DeMartini W, Anderson BO et al (2009) Indications for breast MRI in the patient with newly diagnosed breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 7:193–201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cho N, Moon WK, Cha JH et al (2009) Ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy of microcalcifications detected at screening mammography. Acta Radiol 50:602–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Houssami N, Hayes DF (2009) Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin 59:290–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Choi YJ, Ko EY, Han BK et al (2009) High-resolution ultrasonographic features of axillary lymph node metastasis in patients with breast cancer. Breast 18:119–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alvarez S, Añorbe E, Alcorta P et al (2006) Role of sonography in the diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer: a systematic review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1342–1348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pan L, Han Y, Sun X et al (2010) FDG-PET and other imaging modalities for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 136:1007–1022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Mundinger
    • 1
  1. 1.Radiological Department and Breast CentreNiels-Stensen-ClinicsOsnabrueckGermany

Personalised recommendations