Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Probably Benign Abnormalities of the Breast

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991;179:463–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology. 1992;184:409–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Varas X, et al. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR. 2002;179:691–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS. Malignant lesions initially subject to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology. 2002;223:221–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hall FM. Follow-up of probably benign breast lesions. Radiology. 2000;217(1):303–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sickles EA. Commentary on Dr Rubin’s viewpoint. Radiology. 1999;213:19–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rubin E. Six-month follow-up: an alternative view. Radiology. 1999;213:15–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wu WJ, Moon WK. Ultrasound breast tumor image computer-aided diagnosis with texture and morphological features. Acta Radiol. 2008;15(7):873–80.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Graf O, Berg WA, Sickles EA. Large rodlike calcifications at mammography: analysis of morphologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):299–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hogge JP, Robinson RE, Magnant CM, Zuurbier RA. The mammographic spectrum of fat necrosis of the breast. Radiographics. 1995;15(6):1347–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bilgen IG, Ustun EE, Memis A. Fat necrosis of the breast: clinical, mammographic and sonographic features. Eur J Radiol. 2001;39(2):92–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Soo MS, Kornguth PJ, Hertzberg BS. Fat necrosis in the breast: sonographic features. Radiology. 1998;206:261–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology. 1999;213(3):889–94.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tilve A, Mallo R, Pérez A, Santiago P. Breast hemangiomas: correlation between imaging and pathologic findings. J Clin Ultrasound. 2012;40(8):512–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mesurolle B. Sonographic and mammographic appearances of breast hemangioma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(1):W17–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gao Y, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL. Echogenic breast masses at US: to biopsy or not to biopsy? Radiographics. 2013;33(2):419–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    Mahesh K. Shetty MD, FRCR, FACR, FAIUM

  2. Woman’s Center for Breast Care and MRI, Woman’s Hospital of Texas, Fannin 7600, Houston, TX, 77054, USA

    Mahesh K. Shetty MD, FRCR, FACR, FAIUM

Authors
  1. Mahesh K. Shetty MD, FRCR, FACR, FAIUM
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahesh K. Shetty MD, FRCR, FACR, FAIUM .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Woman's Hospital of TexasWomen's Department of Radiology,, Baylor College of Medicine, Centre for Breast Care and MRI., Houston, Texas, USA

    Mahesh K Shetty

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation