Variability in the interpretation of ultrasonography in patients with palpable noncalcified breast tumors

PURPOSE: To analyze interobserver variability of ultrasonography (US) as an adjunct to mammography in patients with palpable noncalcified breast tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mammographic, US, and combined reading of 200 patients with palpable noncalcified breast masses were performed independently by four experienced radiologists. Nonneoplastic abnormalities and mammographically obvious cancers were excluded. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on 115 tumors was carried out for mammography, US, and both combined for each radiologist. The US diagnoses of the 45 cancers excluded from ROC analysis and the 55 cancers included were compared. RESULTS: One radiologist revealed a significantly higher diagnostic performance with US than with mammography. Combined reading showed the highest performance for all observers, but the improvement as compared with mammography was significant for only two. Higher accuracy on combined reading was mainly caused by correct upgrading of tumors with benign or indeterminate mammographic findings. One radiologist had benefit of US for downgrading of tumors. All four radiologists made a malignant US diagnosis twice as often in mammographically obvious cancers than in mammographically nonconclusive tumors. CONCLUSION: Radiologists differ substantially in interpretation of breast imaging. Combined reading offers the highest diagnostic accuracy mainly by correct upgrading of tumors on US. The role of US for downgrading tumors is operator-dependent.     

The additional value of US to mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. A prospective study.

PURPOSE: To assess the additional value of ultrasonography (US) to mammography in the diagnosis of malignant breast tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospectively recorded final assessment categories for mammography and US were compared for 327 (228 palpable and 99 nonpalpable) consecutive malignant tumors confirmed at histology. The additional value of US was assessed for a subpopulation of 71 of these 327 malignancies after excluding mammographically conclusive malignant findings, ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS), and invasive carcinomas presenting with suspicious microcalcifications, since there is no indication for performing US in these patients. RESULTS: A total of 267 (82%) of the 327 malignant tumors were correctly diagnosed on both imaging modalities. Mammography correctly diagnosed 41 cancers with false-negative US findings as compared with 11 true-positive US diagnoses of malignant tumors with false-negative findings on mammography (McNemar test p<0.001). US correctly diagnosed ("upgraded") 31 (10%) of the 327 malignant tumors with benign or indeterminate mammographic diagnoses. In the subpopulation, US upgraded 20 (42%) of 48 palpable and 10 (44%) of 23 nonpalpable malignant tumors. CONCLUSION: The overall additional value of US to mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer was rather limited in a population of mixed malignant tumors. Excluding cancers with mammographically conclusive diagnosis and suspicious microcalcifications as well as DCIS from analysis, US correctly upgraded more than 40% of palpable and nonpalpable malignant tumors.     

Ultrasonography of malignant breast neoplasms. Analysis of carcinomas missed as tumor.

PURPOSE: To analyze the malignant breast neoplasms missed as tumor on ultrasonography (US). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 355 malignant tumors were confirmed at histology among 2,985 consecutive patients who underwent breast US. There were no prospectively recorded mammographic findings in 28 of the 355 tumors. The remaining 327 tumors included 16 ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS) and 66 invasive carcinomas with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography. Excluding these 82 tumors because US would not have been indicated using strict criteria, a subpopulation of 245 noncalcified invasive malignant tumors remained for analysis. The neoplasms missed as tumor on US were analyzed for the whole tumor group (n=355) and the subpopulation (n=245). RESULTS: 42 (11.8%) of the 355 malignant neoplasms were missed as tumor on US, including 6 (2.5%) of the 243 palpable and 36 (32.1%) of the 1 12 nonpalpable malignancies. Most of the missed tumors were DCIS and microinvasive ductal carcinomas dominated by DCIS. In the subpopulation, 14 (5.7%) of the 245 malignancies were missed as tumor on US, including 4 (2.2%) of the 180 palpable and 10 (15.4%) of the 65 nonpalpable lesions. Of the 245 malignancies, 6 (2.4%) had a normal US finding, including 2 palpable retropapillary tumors and 4 incidental findings at histology. CONCLUSION: Using strict criteria for performing US as an adjunct to mammography, by far the most malignant breast neoplasms are diagnosed as a tumor on US.     

Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted?

PURPOSE: To determine whether palpable noncalcified solid breast masses with benign morphology at mammography and ultrasonography (US) can be managed similarly to nonpalpable probably benign lesions (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] category 3)-that is, with periodic imaging surveillance-and to determine whether biopsy can be averted in these lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: No institutional review board approval or patient consent was required. This retrospective analysis, based on final imaging reports, included 152 patients (age range, 28-77 years; mean age, 48.3 years) with 157 palpable noncalcified solid masses that were classified as probably benign at initial mammography and US. Of 152 patients, 108 underwent follow-up with mammography and US (6-month intervals for 2 years, then 12-month intervals). The remaining 44 patients underwent surgical or needle biopsy after initial imaging. Lesions were analyzed at initial and follow-up examinations. Statistical analysis included Student t test and corresponding exact 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: In 108 patients who underwent follow-up only, 112 lesions were palpable. In 102 (94.4%) of 108 patients, masses remained stable during follow-up. Lesions were followed for at least 2 years (mean, 4.1 years; range, 2-7 years). In six (5.6%) patients, palpable lesions increased in size during follow-up; these lesions were benign at subsequent open biopsy. No breast carcinoma was diagnosed in the 44 patients with 45 palpable lesions who underwent biopsy after initial imaging. Of 157 lesions, no malignant tumors were observed (exact one-sided 95% confidence interval: 0%, 1.95%). CONCLUSION: The data strongly suggest that palpable noncalcified solid breast masses with benign morphology at mammography and US can be managed similarly to nonpalpable BI-RADS category 3 lesions, with short-term follow-up (6-month intervals for 2 years). More data, based on a larger series, are required to determine whether this conclusion is correct.     

Ultrasonography of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: sonographic patterns and diagnostic value: report of 102 cases

The aim of this study was to define the ultrasonographic (US) features of the invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). For this purpose, the clinical histories and the mammographic and sonographic findings observed in 102 patients affected by documented ILC were retrospectively reviewed, and the role and value of US in the diagnosis of palpable and nonpalpable breast tumors were evaluated. At US, five proven tumors were not visualized (sensitivity: 95%), while the remaining 97 showed sonographic images that are considered typically malignant: irregular heterogenic, hypoechoic irregular masses in 94 cases, which were associated with posterior shadowing in 87. The presence of only a posterior shadowing was observed in three cases. There were 16 subclinical tumors, and in two of the four in which a mammography showed an indeterminate lesion, US demonstrated a malignant pattern. All the palpable tumors that were not detected mammographically were demonstrated by US. In 13 of the 102 patients (12.7%), the correct diagnosis of malignancy was established by US. On the basis of the data obtained, it is felt that because of its sensitivity and high specificity for malignancy, US plays a very important role in the diagnosis of ILC, whenever in a patient with positive clinical findings, the mammography is negative or the mammographic features are equivocal.     

Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine how often physician-performed high-resolution sonography can detect nonpalpable breast lesions not revealed by mammography. A sonographic classification scheme was tested for its accuracy in predicting malignancy of incidentally detected breast lesions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Six thousand one hundred thirteen asymptomatic women with breast density grades 2-4 and 687 patients with palpable or mammographically detected breast masses underwent sonography as an adjunct to mammography. All sonographically detected, clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions that were not simple cysts were prospectively classified into benign, indeterminate, or malignant categories. Diagnoses were confirmed by sonographically guided fine-needle aspiration or core needle biopsy. RESULTS: In 6113 asymptomatic women, 23 malignancies in 21 patients were detected with sonography only (prevalence, 0.31%). Five additional malignant lesions were found in patients with a malignant (n = 3) or a benign (n = 2) palpable or mammographically detected index lesion. The mean size of invasive malignancies detected only by sonography was 9.1 mm, which was not significantly different from the mean size of invasive cancers detected by mammography (p = .07). The sensitivity of the prospective sonographic classification for malignancy was 100%, and the specificity was 33.5%. CONCLUSION: The use of high-resolution sonography as an adjunct to mammography in women with dense breasts may lead to detection of a significant number of otherwise occult malignancies that are no different in size from nonpalpable mammographically detected lesions. Prospective classification of these lesions based on sonographic characteristics results in a significant reduction in number of unnecessary biopsies performed.     

Diagnostic accuracy of 99mTc-sestamibi breast imaging: multicenter trial results.

Although mammography is well established as a first-line tool for breast cancer screening and detection, efforts to develop complementary procedures continue. Observation of 99mTc-sestamibi tumor uptake provided the impetus for its evaluation as an adjunctive technique. This trial's objectives were to determine in a multicenter trial the diagnostic accuracy of 99mTc-sestamibi in women with suspected breast cancer and to investigate factors influencing diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: Our multicenter trial enrolled 673 women (387 with nonpalpable abnormalities; 286 with palpable abnormalities) scheduled for excisional biopsy or mastectomy. Blinded and unblinded interpretations of scintigraphic images were compared with core laboratory established histopathologic diagnoses to define the diagnostic accuracy of 99mTc-sestamibi breast imaging. RESULTS: Blinded readers' diagnostic accuracy was 78%-81%. Inter-reader agreement was excellent, ranging from 95% to 100% (kappa = 0.82-0.99). Overall institutional sensitivity and specificity for 99mTc-sestamibi breast imaging were 75.4% and 82.7%, respectively. In this population with a 40.1% disease prevalence, the positive predictive value was 74.5% and the negative predictive value was 83.4%. The negative predictive value was 94% in patients with a 40% or lower mammographic likelihood of breast cancer. Sensitivity was higher for palpable abnormalities; specificity was higher for nonpalpable abnormalities. Sensitivity was decreased for tumors <1 cm in largest dimension but appeared not to be affected by patient's age. CONCLUSION: As an adjunct to current procedures, 99mTc-sestamibi breast imaging may contribute to patient management decisions in selected populations, including women with dense breasts, mammographically indeterminate lesions >1 cm, and palpable abnormalities.     

The Role of Sonography in Patients with Breast Cancer Presenting as an Axillary Mass

Objective

To compare sonography and mammography in terms of their diagnostic value in breast cancer cases which initially presented as an axillary mass without a palpable mass or other clinical symptoms.

Materials and Methods

Seven patients with enlarged axillary lymph nodes who first presented with no evidence of palpable breast lesions and who underwent both mammography and sonography were enrolled in this study. In six of the seven, the presence of metastatic adenocarcinoma was confirmed preoperatively by axillary needle aspiration biopsy; in four, subsequent sonographically-guided breast core biopsy performed after careful examination of the primary site indicated that primary breast cancer was present. In each case, the radiologic findings were evaluated by both breast sonography and mammography.

Results

Breast lesions were detected mammographically in four of seven cases (57%); in three of the four, the lesion presented as a mass, and in one as microcalcification. In three of these four detected cases, fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast parenchyma was present; in one, the parenchyma was dense. In the three cases in which lesions were not detected, mammography revealed the presence of heterogeneously dense parenchyma. Breast sonography showed that lesions were present in six of seven cases (86%); in the remaining patient, malignant microcalcification was detected at mammography. Final pathologic examination indicated that all breast lesions except one, which was a ductal carcinoma in situ, with microinvasion, were infiltrating ductal carcinomas whose size ranged from microscopic to greater than 3 cm. At the time of this study, all seven patients were alive and well, having been disease free for up to 61 months after surgery.

Conclusion

In women with a palpable axillary mass confirmed as metastatic adenocarcinoma, breast sonography may be a valuable adjunct to mammography.     

Value of MR imaging in clinical evaluation of breast lesions

Purpose:
To evaluate the value of dynamic MR imaging as an adjunctive tool to triple diagnosis (TD) (physical examination, mammography and fine needle aspiration cytology) in diagnosing breast lesions. Material and Methods:
Ninety-three consecutive patients with 114 palpable or mammographically detected breast lesions were examined with TD and MR imaging. The MR examination was performed dynamically using a dedicated breast coil. Five diagnostic groups were defined on a scale from 1=normal, to 5 = malignant, where groups 1-3 were defined as benign and groups 4-5 as malignant. All lesions were histopathologically examined. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for mammography alone, TD, MR and the combination of MR and TD. Results:
Histopathology revealed 32 benign and 82 malignant lesions (73 invasive and 9 cancer in situ). The sensitivity/specificity was 84%/59% for mammography, 93%/41% for TD, 94%/47% for MR and 99%/19% for TD + MR. In the 32 mammographically dense breasts, mammography/TD/MR/TD + MR had a sensitivity of 72%/94%/94%/100% and a specificity of 79%/57%/36%/29%, respectively. Conclusion:
MR imaging might be of value as an additive method to TD by increasing the sensitivity, but at the cost of decreasing specificity. Patients with mammographically dense parenchyma might have more benefit of the additive value, as the decrease in specificity in these patients was less pronounced in our study.     

Through-transmission US applied to breast imaging

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the application of a new method of through-transmission ultrasonography (US) to breast imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through-transmission US was used to image breast tissue in 18 women; 12 had no known lesions, and six had masses, five of which were palpable. Of those with no known lesions, two had implants, and two had mammary duct ectasia. Lesion sizes and locations on the through-transmission sonograms were correlated with findings from conventional imaging to determine successful imaging. Histopathologic findings and lesion size were recorded from pathology reports. Detailed comparative analyses of through-transmission US, conventional x-ray mammography, and conventional US were performed. The following lesion variables were compared: maximum diameter, shape, margins, and internal architecture. RESULTS: Through-transmission US produced images of all masses, some of which were mammographically occult. Comparisons among through-transmission US, mammography, and conventional US showed high correlation in lesion characteristics such as maximum diameter, shape, margins, and internal architecture. For two malignant masses, through-transmission US appeared to be more accurate in assessing tumor extent, compared with mammography and conventional US. CONCLUSION: This new method of through-transmission US produces images of breast tissue in women with a variety of breast types and can be used to detect and characterize a variety of lesions, some of which are mammographically occult.     

Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography.

PURPOSE: To determine the value of ultrasonography (US) as an adjunct to mammography for the diagnosis of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 2-year prospective study, 4,811 mammograms were classified according to level of suspicion of malignancy. Targeted US was performed to analyze (a) circumscribed lesions, possibly cysts; (b) palpable lesions visible at mammography; (c) palpable lesions not visible at mammography; and (d) nonpalpable lesions visible at mammography. After US was performed in 1,103 cases (23%), cases were reclassified for level of suspicion. RESULTS: In 338 cases, breast cancer was diagnosed. The sensitivity of mammography for all 4,811 cases was 83%; the specificity was 97%. After US, the combined sensitivity increased to 91%, with a specificity of 98%. The increase was significant (P < .001). The increase in sensitivity was highest among women younger than 50 years. The positive predictive value for mammography was high (72%), which reflects a high threshold for biopsy; this may have augmented the yield of US. CONCLUSION: The use of US as an adjunct to mammography resulted in an increase in diagnostic accuracy. Its contribution to the diagnosis of breast cancer in this study was 7.4%.     

US of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications

PURPOSE: To determine whether ultrasonography (US) can depict breast masses associated with mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications and whether the visibility at US is different between benign and malignant lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients with 100 mammographically detected microcalcification clusters prospectively underwent US with a 10- or 12-MHz transducer before mammographically guided presurgical hook-wire localization. The visibility of breast masses at US was correlated with histologic and mammographic findings. RESULTS: Surgical biopsy revealed 62 benign lesions, 30 intraductal cancers, and eight invasive cancers. At US, breast masses associated with microcalcifications were seen in 45 (45%) of 100 cases. US depicted more breast masses associated with malignant (31 [82%] of 38) than with benign (14 [23%] of 62) microcalcifications (P: <.001). In malignant microcalcification clusters larger than 10 mm, US depicted associated breast masses in all 25 cases. There was no statistically significant difference in shape and distribution of calcific particles, as well as in breast composition, at mammography between US visible and invisible groups. CONCLUSION: Given a known mammographic location, US with a high-frequency transducer can depict breast masses associated with malignant microcalcifications, particularly clusters larger than 10 mm. US can be used to visualize large clusters of microcalcifications that have a very high suspicion of malignancy.     

Assessment of breast lesions using BI-RADS US lexicon in mammographically dense breasts (ACR categories 3 and 4) with histopathological correlation

Purpose

To assess the role of ultrasonography in detection, and categorization of breast lesions in patients with mammographically dense breasts with the use of the BI-RADS US lexicon.

Patients and methods

This study included 60 female patients (age range from 20 to 80 years, mean 38.3 ± 11.9) complaining of mastalgia, breast lump or nipple discharge with mammographically dense breast tissue. Breast ultrasound was performed to all patients with a 12-MHz linear-array transducer. Sonographic findings of the breast lesions were described and categorized according to the BI-RADS US assessment categories. Biopsy procedures were performed for the sonographically detected breast lesions with histopathological examination of the biopsied tissue.

Results

The main complaint was palpable breast mass encountered in 25 patients, 12 of mastalgia, 4 of nipple discharge, 12 patients were on screening and 7 on follow up. 36 patients were categorized as ACR 3 and 24 ACR 4 regarding the density of their breasts in mammography. Mammography revealed no abnormalities in 31 patients and abnormal in 29 patients, the commonest mammographic finding was breast mass, detected in 19 patients. Ultrasound detected breast lesions in 56 (93.3%) out of 60 patients. BI-RADS US category 2 was the most common category representing 36.7%. Ultrasonography had a diagnostic reliability for differentiating between benign and malignant breast lesions (p = 0.869) in mammographically dense breasts while mammography was diagnostically unreliable (p = 0.045).

Conclusion

Ultrasound is a mandatory adjunct to mammography in detection and characterization of breast lesions in mammographically dense breasts.     

The prevalence of carcinoma in palpable vs impalpable, mammographically detected lesions.

Concern over excessive numbers of false-positive mammograms, leading to unnecessary investigations and surgical interventions, has been cited as a barrier to mammographic screening for breast cancer. We compared the biopsy results from palpable vs impalpable, mammographically detected lesions from one experienced breast surgeon's practice from July 1980 through July 1989. Overall, there were 372 biopsies in 346 women. Of 143 biopsies for palpable abnormalities, 48 (34%) yielded a primary malignant lesion. The length of the palpable cancers averaged 3.7 cm (median, 2.8 cm). Sixteen (33%) of the 48 biopsies were in patients who had positive axillary lymph nodes, and five (10%) were in patients who had distant metastases at the time of biopsy. Of 229 biopsies for impalpable, mammographically detected lesions, 72 (31%) yielded a primary breast carcinoma. Excluding 34 carcinomas that had only calcifications, the length of the mammographically detected tumors averaged 2.0 cm (median, 1.5 cm). Eleven (15%) of the 72 biopsies were in patients who had positive axillary nodes, and none were in patients who had distant metastases at the time of biopsy. The positive predictive values (number of cancers detected divided by the number of biopsies recommended) were not significantly different when comparing biopsies indicated for palpable, clinically detected (34%) vs impalpable, mammographically detected (31%) abnormalities (p = .669). However, the mammographically detected cancers were smaller, more often noninvasive (32% vs 4%), less often associated with axillary metastases (15% vs 33%), and without distant metastases (0% vs 10%).     

Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in preoperative assessment of local extent of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed patient consent were obtained. Results of bilateral mammography, US, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging were analyzed from 111 consecutive women with known or suspected invasive breast cancer. Results were correlated with histopathologic findings. RESULTS: Analysis included 177 malignant foci in 121 cancerous breasts, of which 89 (50%) foci were palpable. Median size of 139 invasive foci was 18 mm (range, 2-107 mm). Mammographic sensitivity decreased from 100% in fatty breasts to 45% in extremely dense breasts. Mammographic sensitivity was highest for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 89 of 110 (81%) cases versus 10 of 29 (34%) cases of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (P < .001) and 21 of 38 (55%) cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (P < .01). US showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for IDC, depicting 104 of 110 (94%) cases, and for ILC, depicting 25 of 29 (86%) cases (P < .01 for each). US showed higher sensitivity for invasive cancer than DCIS (18 of 38 [47%], P < .001). MR showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for all tumor types (P < .01) and higher sensitivity than did US for DCIS (P < .001), depicting 105 of 110 (95%) cases of IDC, 28 of 29 (96%) cases of ILC, and 34 of 38 (89%) cases of DCIS. In anticipation of conservation or no surgery after mammography and clinical examination in 96 breasts, additional tumor (which altered surgical approach) was present in 30. Additional tumor was depicted in 17 of 96 (18%) breasts at US and in 29 of 96 (30%) at MR, though extent was now overestimated in 12 of 96 (12%) at US and 20 of 96 (21%) at MR imaging. After combined mammography, clinical examination, and US, MR depicted additional tumor in another 12 of 96 (12%) breasts and led to overestimation of extent in another six (6%); US showed no detection benefit after MR imaging. Bilateral cancer was present in 10 of 111 (9%) patients; contralateral tumor was depicted mammographically in six and with both US and MR in an additional three. One contralateral cancer was demonstrated only clinically. CONCLUSION: In nonfatty breasts, US and MR imaging were more sensitive than mammography for invasive cancer, but both MR imaging and US involved risk of overestimation of tumor extent. Combined mammography, clinical examination, and MR imaging were more sensitive than any other individual test or combination of tests.     

Breast conservation therapy in patients with mammographically undetected breast cancer.

The authors reviewed their experience with 542 patients with breast cancer who were treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy (CSRT) and analyzed the outcome in those patients whose tumors could not be detected with mammography. Fifty-five of the patients (10.1%) had a palpable, pathologically confirmed breast carcinoma and a negative preoperative mammogram. Routine follow-up included annual mammography and physical examination. The local recurrence, 5-year actuarial survival, and 5-year disease-free survival rates for these 55 patients did not differ significantly from those for patients with positive mammograms. There were six cases of local breast recurrence in this subgroup. Four of five cases were visible on mammograms (one patient did not undergo mammography at the time of recurrence); two of the cases were detected with mammography alone following physical examination with negative results. The authors conclude that patients with palpable but mammographically occult early-stage breast cancer are suitable candidates for CSRT and that mammography is a mandatory part of follow-up of conservatively treated patients.     

Differentiation of benign and malignant local tumor recurrence after lumpectomy

During a 5-year period, 28 women who had been treated conservatively for breast carcinoma had 29 reexcisions of the lumpectomy site because of suspicion of a recurrent malignant tumor. Biopsy results were benign in 19 cases and malignant in 10 cases. Sixteen of the 19 benign tumors had developed within 2 years after therapy. In 16 benign cases, a palpable lump developed at the scar and was found on biopsy to be fat necrosis or fibrosis. Seven of these cases had normal mammographic findings. Three women with abnormal mammographic findings but a normal breast examination had punctate microcalcifications develop at the scar; these were due to fibrosis in two and sclerosing adenosis in the other. Of the 10 malignant recurrent tumors, seven were palpable, four of which also were identifiable by mammography. Of seven mammographically identifiable recurrent tumors at the surgical site, four were palpable. Mammographic findings were a single mass in two cases, multiple masses in one, microcalcification in three, and a mass with microcalcifications in one. Malignant microcalcifications were all linear, irregular, and in one case branching. Mean time to recurrence in these 10 women was 3 years. This experience suggests that benign disease usually occurs at the scar within 2 years after the original therapy and when palpable may not show changes on mammography. When microcalcifications do occur, they are usually punctate.     

Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of breast disease

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast was performed in 10 volunteers and 102 women with suspected breast disease, using a 0.35-T superconducting magnet. All patients had prior x-ray mammography. MRI was superior to mammography in differentiating solid from cystic lesions and equivalent to mammography in providing information regarding different parenchymal patterns. Of 21 surgically proven carcinomas of the breast, MRI correctly identified 18 and mammography identified 19. The major disadvantage of MRI is its inability to show calcifications, benign or malignant. Future studies will be needed to show the relative values of sonography and MRI in detecting small cysts. In addition, MRI in future should be able to demonstrate small, noncalcified masses in mammographically dense, fibrocystic breasts.     

Adjunctive diagnostic value of targeted electrical impedance imaging to conventional methods in the evaluation of breast lesions

PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of targeted electrical impedance imaging in characterizing breast lesions, and to evaluate whether lesion size, depth and histopathology affect the diagnosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 137 women with 145 lesions (79 malignant and 66 benign) found by palpation or mammography were prospectively enrolled in this study. The patients were examined by means of clinical breast examination, mammography, ultrasonography, and electrical impedance imaging with TransScan TS2000. A level of suspicion (LOS) post-processing algorithm (v2.67) was used for TS2000 lesion assessment. Imaging findings were correlated with cytologic (n=54) and histologic diagnoses (n=91). Patients with benign lesions were followed up for a mean of 36 months. RESULTS: TS2000 showed a high sensitivity (86%) which did not differ significantly from that of mammography (87%) and ultrasonography (US) (75%). The specificity of TS2000 (49%) was significantly lower compared to mammography (97%, P<0.0001) and US (100%, P<0.0001). The additive use of TS2000 to mammography and US yielded no significant increase in sensitivity (97%), but the decrease in specificity was significant (46%, P<0.0001). Diagnostic effectiveness of TS2000 (Az=0.68), as measured by the area under the ROC curve, was significantly lower than for mammography (Az=0.93, P<0.0001) and for US (Az=0.91, P<0.0001). When using TS2000 in addition to mammography and US (Az=0.86), a significant impairment was found (P=0.0003). CONCLUSION: The role of targeted electrical impedance imaging as an adjunct to mammography and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast lesions is not justified by the result of this study.     

Breast sonography

Sonographic equipment for breast imaging has continued to improve, and the role of breast sonography has evolved to that of an indispensable adjunct to mammography. Breast sonography is not useful for screening for breast cancer in any age group. Its main use is for the differentiation of cystic vs solid palpable and mammographically visible masses. If strict sonographic criteria are used for a simple cyst, the diagnostic accuracy approaches 100%. Sonographic diagnosis of a simple cyst precludes the need for further workup, including aspiration, biopsy, or followup. This article emphasizes the technical aspects of breast sonography, especially those factors that alter the diagnostic information on the images. These factors can be especially problematic in differentiating cysts and solid masses, the most common diagnostic use of breast sonography. Selection of equipment depends largely on the requirements of a specific practice. Optimally, the sonographic equipment is located close to where mammography is performed, and the sonographic and mammographic findings are interpreted together.