Breast lumps other imaging findings: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{CMG}} {{AE}} {{S.M}} | {{CMG}} {{AE}} {{S.M}} | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
[[Mammography]] is considered as the first and mainstay for evaluation of palpable masses in women over 40 years. Diagnostic [[mammogram]] contains particular views by focal compression of specific part of breast tissue | [[Mammography]] is considered as the first and mainstay for evaluation of palpable masses in women over 40 years. Diagnostic [[mammogram]] contains particular views by focal compression of specific part of breast tissue.There is standard method for reporting mammographic findings which is called breast imaging reporting and database system (BI-RADS) which is classified into 7 categories. | ||
==Other Imaging Findings== | ==Other Imaging Findings== | ||
=== Mammography === | === Mammography === | ||
[[Mammography]] is considered as the first and mainstay for evaluation of palpable masses in women over 40 years.<ref name="pmid23464688">{{cite journal| author=Smetherman DH| title=Screening, imaging, and image-guided biopsy techniques for breast cancer. | journal=Surg Clin North Am | year= 2013 | volume= 93 | issue= 2 | pages= 309-27 | pmid=23464688 | doi=10.1016/j.suc.2013.01.004 | pmc= | url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=23464688 }} </ref> <ref name="pmid25341156">{{cite journal| author=Lehman CD, Lee AY, Lee CI| title=Imaging management of palpable breast abnormalities. | journal=AJR Am J Roentgenol | year= 2014 | volume= 203 | issue= 5 | pages= 1142-53 | pmid=25341156 | doi=10.2214/AJR.14.12725 | pmc= | url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=25341156 }} </ref> | |||
Diagnostic [[mammogram]] contains particular views by focal compression of specific part of breast tissue.<ref name=":0">Shikhman R, Keppke AL. Breast, Imaging, Reporting and Data System (BI RADS) [Updated 2018 Oct 27]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2018 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459169/</ref> | |||
Indication of diagnostic [[mammography]]: | |||
*Breast symptoms such as palpable masses | *Breast symptoms such as palpable masses | ||
*Positive history of breast cancer in last 5 years | *Positive history of [[breast cancer]] in last 5 years | ||
*Required additional imaging due to abnormal screening mammogram including(calcification, masses, architectural distortion, asymmetries) | *Required additional imaging due to abnormal screening [[mammogram]] including (calcification, masses, architectural distortion, asymmetries) | ||
There is standard method for reporting mammographic findings which is called breast imaging reporting and database system(BI-RADS). | There is standard method for reporting mammographic findings which is called breast imaging reporting and database system (BI-RADS). | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|+BI-RADS<ref name=":0" /> | |+BI-RADS<ref name=":0" /> | ||
| Line 35: | Line 34: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|2 | |2 | ||
|Benign | |[[Benign]] | ||
|Annual screening mammograms (age>40 years) | |Annual screening mammograms (age>40 years) | ||
|- | |- | ||
|3 | |3 | ||
|Probably benign | |Probably [[benign]] | ||
|Every 6 months follow-up (risk of malignancy<2%) | |Every 6 months follow-up (risk of malignancy<2%) | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 47: | Line 46: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|5 | |5 | ||
|High suggestive of malignancy | |High suggestive of [[malignancy]] | ||
|Biopsy is required (>95% chance of malignancy) | |Biopsy is required (>95% chance of malignancy) | ||
|- | |- | ||
|6 | |6 | ||
|Known cancer | |Known [[cancer]] | ||
|Biopsy is required to prove malignancy | |Biopsy is required to prove malignancy | ||
|} | |} | ||
Normal mammographic features regarding to palpable mass do not rule out malignancy.Therefore; further ultrasound is needed to be performed <ref>William E. Barlow, Constance D. Lehman, Yingye Zheng, Rachel Ballard-Barbash, Bonnie C. Yankaskas, Gary R. Cutter, Patricia A. Carney, Berta M. Geller, Robert Rosenberg, Karla Kerlikowske, Donald L. Weaver, Stephen H. Taplin; Performance of Diagnostic Mammography for Women With Signs or Symptoms of Breast Cancer, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 94, Issue 15, 7 August 2002, Pages 1151–1159, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/94.15.1151</ref> | Normal mammographic features regarding to palpable mass do not rule out [[malignancy]].Therefore; further [[ultrasound]] is needed to be performed.<ref>William E. Barlow, Constance D. Lehman, Yingye Zheng, Rachel Ballard-Barbash, Bonnie C. Yankaskas, Gary R. Cutter, Patricia A. Carney, Berta M. Geller, Robert Rosenberg, Karla Kerlikowske, Donald L. Weaver, Stephen H. Taplin; Performance of Diagnostic Mammography for Women With Signs or Symptoms of Breast Cancer, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 94, Issue 15, 7 August 2002, Pages 1151–1159, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/94.15.1151</ref> Only 57% of women with palpable breast lumps and normal mammographic features received further evaluation.<ref>Constance D. Lehman, Amie Y. Lee, and Christoph I. Lee | ||
American Journal of Roentgenology 2014 203:5, 1142-1153 </ref> | American Journal of Roentgenology 2014 203:5, 1142-1153 </ref> Mammographic finding in favor of calcified [[fibroadenoma]], oil [[cyst]], [[galactocele]], [[hamartoma]], [[lipoma]], [[lymph node]] and fatty tissue in specific breast areas do not need any further evaluation. Otherwise, probably [[benign]] and suspicious features are required further evaluation via [[ultrasound]].<ref>Constance D. Lehman, Amie Y. Lee, and Christoph I. Lee | ||
Mammographic finding in favor of calcified fibroadenoma, oil cyst,galactocele, hamartoma,lipoma, lymph node and fatty tissue in specific breast areas do not need any further evaluation. Otherwise, probably benign and suspicious features are required further evaluation via ultrasound<ref>Constance D. Lehman, Amie Y. Lee, and Christoph I. Lee | |||
American Journal of Roentgenology 2014 203:5, 1142-1153 </ref> | American Journal of Roentgenology 2014 203:5, 1142-1153 </ref> | ||
Revision as of 15:54, 4 January 2019
|
Breast lumps Microchapters |
|
Diagnosis |
|---|
|
Treatment |
|
Case Studies |
|
Breast lumps other imaging findings On the Web |
|
American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Breast lumps other imaging findings |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Breast lumps other imaging findings |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1] Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Shadan Mehraban, M.D.[2]
Overview
Mammography is considered as the first and mainstay for evaluation of palpable masses in women over 40 years. Diagnostic mammogram contains particular views by focal compression of specific part of breast tissue.There is standard method for reporting mammographic findings which is called breast imaging reporting and database system (BI-RADS) which is classified into 7 categories.
Other Imaging Findings
Mammography
Mammography is considered as the first and mainstay for evaluation of palpable masses in women over 40 years.[1] [2]
Diagnostic mammogram contains particular views by focal compression of specific part of breast tissue.[3]
Indication of diagnostic mammography:
- Breast symptoms such as palpable masses
- Positive history of breast cancer in last 5 years
- Required additional imaging due to abnormal screening mammogram including (calcification, masses, architectural distortion, asymmetries)
There is standard method for reporting mammographic findings which is called breast imaging reporting and database system (BI-RADS).
| Category | Assessment | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Required additional imaging evaluation | Additional imaging findings are required to classify in specific category |
| 1 | Negetive | Annual screening mammograms (age>40 years) |
| 2 | Benign | Annual screening mammograms (age>40 years) |
| 3 | Probably benign | Every 6 months follow-up (risk of malignancy<2%) |
| 4 | Suspicious abnormality | Biopsy should be considered (2%-95% risk of malignancy) |
| 5 | High suggestive of malignancy | Biopsy is required (>95% chance of malignancy) |
| 6 | Known cancer | Biopsy is required to prove malignancy |
Normal mammographic features regarding to palpable mass do not rule out malignancy.Therefore; further ultrasound is needed to be performed.[4] Only 57% of women with palpable breast lumps and normal mammographic features received further evaluation.[5] Mammographic finding in favor of calcified fibroadenoma, oil cyst, galactocele, hamartoma, lipoma, lymph node and fatty tissue in specific breast areas do not need any further evaluation. Otherwise, probably benign and suspicious features are required further evaluation via ultrasound.[6]
References
- ↑ Smetherman DH (2013). "Screening, imaging, and image-guided biopsy techniques for breast cancer". Surg Clin North Am. 93 (2): 309–27. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2013.01.004. PMID 23464688.
- ↑ Lehman CD, Lee AY, Lee CI (2014). "Imaging management of palpable breast abnormalities". AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203 (5): 1142–53. doi:10.2214/AJR.14.12725. PMID 25341156.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Shikhman R, Keppke AL. Breast, Imaging, Reporting and Data System (BI RADS) [Updated 2018 Oct 27]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2018 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459169/
- ↑ William E. Barlow, Constance D. Lehman, Yingye Zheng, Rachel Ballard-Barbash, Bonnie C. Yankaskas, Gary R. Cutter, Patricia A. Carney, Berta M. Geller, Robert Rosenberg, Karla Kerlikowske, Donald L. Weaver, Stephen H. Taplin; Performance of Diagnostic Mammography for Women With Signs or Symptoms of Breast Cancer, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 94, Issue 15, 7 August 2002, Pages 1151–1159, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/94.15.1151
- ↑ Constance D. Lehman, Amie Y. Lee, and Christoph I. Lee American Journal of Roentgenology 2014 203:5, 1142-1153
- ↑ Constance D. Lehman, Amie Y. Lee, and Christoph I. Lee American Journal of Roentgenology 2014 203:5, 1142-1153