Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.

Radiology, Vol 192, 439-442, Copyright © 1994 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

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

EA Sickles
Department of Radiology, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco 94143-0628.

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.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. Schrading and C. K. Kuhl
Mammographic, US, and MR Imaging Phenotypes of Familial Breast Cancer
Radiology, January 1, 2008; 246(1): 58 - 70.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
B. Sahiner, H.-P. Chan, M. A. Roubidoux, L. M. Hadjiiski, M. A. Helvie, C. Paramagul, J. Bailey, A. V. Nees, and C. Blane
Malignant and Benign Breast Masses on 3D US Volumetric Images: Effect of Computer-aided Diagnosis on Radiologist Accuracy
Radiology, March 1, 2007; 242(3): 716 - 724.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, and E. B. Mendelson
Operator Dependence of Physician-performed Whole-Breast US: Lesion Detection and Characterization.
Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 355 - 365.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
L. Liberman, G. Mason, E. A. Morris, and D. D. Dershaw
Does Size Matter? Positive Predictive Value of MRI-Detected Breast Lesions as a Function of Lesion Size
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2006; 186(2): 426 - 430.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. A. Berg
Sonographically Depicted Breast Clustered Microcysts: Is Follow-Up Appropriate?
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 952 - 959.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
M. B. Mainiero, A. Goldkamp, E. Lazarus, L. Livingston, S. L. Koelliker, B. Schepps, and W. W. Mayo-Smith
Characterization of Breast Masses With Sonography: Can Biopsy of Some Solid Masses Be Deferred?
J. Ultrasound Med., February 1, 2005; 24(2): 161 - 167.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. C. Foster, M. A. Helvie, N. E. Gregory, M. Rebner, A. V. Nees, and C. Paramagul
Lobular Carcinoma in Situ or Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia at Core-Needle Biopsy: Is Excisional Biopsy Necessary?
Radiology, June 1, 2004; 231(3): 813 - 819.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
P. B. Gordon, F. A. Gagnon, and L. Lanzkowsky
Solid Breast Masses Diagnosed as Fibroadenoma at Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy: Acceptable Rates of Growth at Long-term Follow-up
Radiology, October 1, 2003; 229(1): 233 - 238.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
A. S. Majid, E. S. de Paredes, R. D. Doherty, N. R. Sharma, and X. Salvador
Missed Breast Carcinoma: Pitfalls and Pearls
RadioGraphics, July 1, 2003; 23(4): 881 - 895.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
W. A. Berg, C. I. Campassi, and O. B. Ioffe
Cystic Lesions of the Breast: Sonographic-Pathologic Correlation
Radiology, April 1, 2003; 227(1): 183 - 191.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
W. A. Berg, C. J. D'Orsi, V. P. Jackson, L. W. Bassett, C. A. Beam, R. S. Lewis, and P. E. Crewson
Does Training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Improve Biopsy Recommendations or Feature Analysis Agreement with Experienced Breast Imagers at Mammography?
Radiology, September 1, 2002; 224(3): 871 - 880.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
L. Liberman, E. A. Morris, M. J.-Y. Lee, J. B. Kaplan, L. R. LaTrenta, J. H. Menell, A. F. Abramson, S. M. Dashnaw, D. J. Ballon, and D. D. Dershaw
Breast Lesions Detected on MR Imaging: Features and Positive Predictive Value
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2002; 179(1): 171 - 178.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. L. Rosen, J. A. Baker, and M. S. Soo
Malignant Lesions Initially Subjected to Short-term Mammographic Follow-up
Radiology, April 1, 2002; 223(1): 221 - 228.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
K. E. Dee and E. A. Sickles
Medical Audit of Diagnostic Mammography Examinations: Comparison with Screening Outcomes Obtained Concurrently
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2001; 176(3): 729 - 733.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. A. Berg, C. Campassi, P. Langenberg, and M. J. Sexton
Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: Inter- and Intraobserver Variability in Feature Analysis and Final Assessment
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2000; 174(6): 1769 - 1777.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. A. Sickles
Breast Imaging: From 1965 to the Present
Radiology, April 1, 2000; 215(1): 1 - 16.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
W. A. Berg and P. L. Gilbreath
Multicentric and Multifocal Cancer: Whole-Breast US in Preoperative Evaluation1
Radiology, January 1, 2000; 214(1): 59 - 66.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. A. Sickles
Probably Benign Breast Lesions: When Should Follow-up Be Recommended and What Is the Optimal Follow-up Protocol?
Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 11 - 14.
[Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. A. Sickles
Commentary on Dr Rubin's Viewpoint
Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 19 - 20.
[Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. Rubin
Commentary on Dr Sickles's Viewpoint
Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 21 - 21.
[Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
B. M. Geller, W. E. Barlow, R. Ballard-Barbash, V. L. Ernster, B. C. Yankaskas, E. A. Sickles, P. A. Carney, M. B. Dignan, R. D. Rosenberg, N. Urban, et al.
Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to Report on the Mammographic Evaluation of Women with Signs and Symptoms of Breast Disease
Radiology, February 1, 2002; 222(2): 536 - 542.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1994 by the Radiological Society of North America.