Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation

Guita Rahbar, Angela C. Sie, Gail C. Hansen, Jeffrey S. Prince, Michelle L. Melany, Handel E. Reynolds, Valerie Jackson, James W. Sayre, Lawrence W. Bassett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

292 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the general applicability and interobserver variability of ultrasonographic (US) features in differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred sixty-two consecutive solid masses with a tissue diagnosis were reviewed. Three radiologists reviewed the masses without knowledge of clinical history or histologic examination results. RESULTS: US features that most reliably characterize masses as benign were a round or oval shape (67 of 71 [94%] were benign), circumscribed margins (95 of 104 [91%] were benign), and a width-to- anteroposterior (AP) dimension ratio greater than 1.4 (82 of 92 [89%] were benign). Features that characterize masses as malignant included irregular shape (19 of 31 [61%] were malignant), microlobulated (four of six [67%] were malignant) or spiculated (two of three [67%] were malignant) margins, and width-to-AP dimension ratio of 1.4 or less (28 of 70 [40%] were malignant). If the three most reliable criteria had been strictly applied by each radiologist, the overall cancer biopsy yield would have increased (from 23% to 39%) by 16%. When US images and mammograms were available, the increase in biopsy yield contributed by US was not statistically significant (2%, P = .73). However, in independent reviews, one to three reviewers interpreted four carcinomas as benign at US. CONCLUSION: The data confirm that certain US features can help differentiate benign from malignant masses. However, practice and interpreter variability should be further explored before these criteria are generally applied to defer biopsy of solid masses.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)889-894
Number of pages6
JournalRadiology
Volume213
Issue number3
StatePublished - Dec 1999

Fingerprint

Breast
Biopsy
Observer Variation
Carcinoma
Neoplasms
Radiologists

Keywords

  • Breast neoplasms, diagnosis
  • Breast neoplasms, radiography
  • Breast neoplasms, US
  • Breast radiography, comparative studies
  • Breast, US

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Rahbar, G., Sie, A. C., Hansen, G. C., Prince, J. S., Melany, M. L., Reynolds, H. E., ... Bassett, L. W. (1999). Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology, 213(3), 889-894.

Benign versus malignant solid breast masses : US differentiation. / Rahbar, Guita; Sie, Angela C.; Hansen, Gail C.; Prince, Jeffrey S.; Melany, Michelle L.; Reynolds, Handel E.; Jackson, Valerie; Sayre, James W.; Bassett, Lawrence W.

In: Radiology, Vol. 213, No. 3, 12.1999, p. 889-894.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rahbar, G, Sie, AC, Hansen, GC, Prince, JS, Melany, ML, Reynolds, HE, Jackson, V, Sayre, JW & Bassett, LW 1999, 'Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation', Radiology, vol. 213, no. 3, pp. 889-894.
Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology. 1999 Dec;213(3):889-894.
Rahbar, Guita ; Sie, Angela C. ; Hansen, Gail C. ; Prince, Jeffrey S. ; Melany, Michelle L. ; Reynolds, Handel E. ; Jackson, Valerie ; Sayre, James W. ; Bassett, Lawrence W. / Benign versus malignant solid breast masses : US differentiation. In: Radiology. 1999 ; Vol. 213, No. 3. pp. 889-894.
@article{320a6ddf42f3490ea091b2a19dd8c546,
title = "Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To investigate the general applicability and interobserver variability of ultrasonographic (US) features in differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred sixty-two consecutive solid masses with a tissue diagnosis were reviewed. Three radiologists reviewed the masses without knowledge of clinical history or histologic examination results. RESULTS: US features that most reliably characterize masses as benign were a round or oval shape (67 of 71 [94{\%}] were benign), circumscribed margins (95 of 104 [91{\%}] were benign), and a width-to- anteroposterior (AP) dimension ratio greater than 1.4 (82 of 92 [89{\%}] were benign). Features that characterize masses as malignant included irregular shape (19 of 31 [61{\%}] were malignant), microlobulated (four of six [67{\%}] were malignant) or spiculated (two of three [67{\%}] were malignant) margins, and width-to-AP dimension ratio of 1.4 or less (28 of 70 [40{\%}] were malignant). If the three most reliable criteria had been strictly applied by each radiologist, the overall cancer biopsy yield would have increased (from 23{\%} to 39{\%}) by 16{\%}. When US images and mammograms were available, the increase in biopsy yield contributed by US was not statistically significant (2{\%}, P = .73). However, in independent reviews, one to three reviewers interpreted four carcinomas as benign at US. CONCLUSION: The data confirm that certain US features can help differentiate benign from malignant masses. However, practice and interpreter variability should be further explored before these criteria are generally applied to defer biopsy of solid masses.",
keywords = "Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, Breast neoplasms, radiography, Breast neoplasms, US, Breast radiography, comparative studies, Breast, US",
author = "Guita Rahbar and Sie, {Angela C.} and Hansen, {Gail C.} and Prince, {Jeffrey S.} and Melany, {Michelle L.} and Reynolds, {Handel E.} and Valerie Jackson and Sayre, {James W.} and Bassett, {Lawrence W.}",
year = "1999",
month = "12",
language = "English",
volume = "213",
pages = "889--894",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benign versus malignant solid breast masses

T2 - US differentiation

AU - Rahbar, Guita

AU - Sie, Angela C.

AU - Hansen, Gail C.

AU - Prince, Jeffrey S.

AU - Melany, Michelle L.

AU - Reynolds, Handel E.

AU - Jackson, Valerie

AU - Sayre, James W.

AU - Bassett, Lawrence W.

PY - 1999/12

Y1 - 1999/12

N2 - PURPOSE: To investigate the general applicability and interobserver variability of ultrasonographic (US) features in differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred sixty-two consecutive solid masses with a tissue diagnosis were reviewed. Three radiologists reviewed the masses without knowledge of clinical history or histologic examination results. RESULTS: US features that most reliably characterize masses as benign were a round or oval shape (67 of 71 [94%] were benign), circumscribed margins (95 of 104 [91%] were benign), and a width-to- anteroposterior (AP) dimension ratio greater than 1.4 (82 of 92 [89%] were benign). Features that characterize masses as malignant included irregular shape (19 of 31 [61%] were malignant), microlobulated (four of six [67%] were malignant) or spiculated (two of three [67%] were malignant) margins, and width-to-AP dimension ratio of 1.4 or less (28 of 70 [40%] were malignant). If the three most reliable criteria had been strictly applied by each radiologist, the overall cancer biopsy yield would have increased (from 23% to 39%) by 16%. When US images and mammograms were available, the increase in biopsy yield contributed by US was not statistically significant (2%, P = .73). However, in independent reviews, one to three reviewers interpreted four carcinomas as benign at US. CONCLUSION: The data confirm that certain US features can help differentiate benign from malignant masses. However, practice and interpreter variability should be further explored before these criteria are generally applied to defer biopsy of solid masses.

AB - PURPOSE: To investigate the general applicability and interobserver variability of ultrasonographic (US) features in differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred sixty-two consecutive solid masses with a tissue diagnosis were reviewed. Three radiologists reviewed the masses without knowledge of clinical history or histologic examination results. RESULTS: US features that most reliably characterize masses as benign were a round or oval shape (67 of 71 [94%] were benign), circumscribed margins (95 of 104 [91%] were benign), and a width-to- anteroposterior (AP) dimension ratio greater than 1.4 (82 of 92 [89%] were benign). Features that characterize masses as malignant included irregular shape (19 of 31 [61%] were malignant), microlobulated (four of six [67%] were malignant) or spiculated (two of three [67%] were malignant) margins, and width-to-AP dimension ratio of 1.4 or less (28 of 70 [40%] were malignant). If the three most reliable criteria had been strictly applied by each radiologist, the overall cancer biopsy yield would have increased (from 23% to 39%) by 16%. When US images and mammograms were available, the increase in biopsy yield contributed by US was not statistically significant (2%, P = .73). However, in independent reviews, one to three reviewers interpreted four carcinomas as benign at US. CONCLUSION: The data confirm that certain US features can help differentiate benign from malignant masses. However, practice and interpreter variability should be further explored before these criteria are generally applied to defer biopsy of solid masses.

KW - Breast neoplasms, diagnosis

KW - Breast neoplasms, radiography

KW - Breast neoplasms, US

KW - Breast radiography, comparative studies

KW - Breast, US

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032727187&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032727187&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10580971

AN - SCOPUS:0032727187

VL - 213

SP - 889

EP - 894

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 3

ER -