Probably benign breast lesions on ultrasonography: A retrospective review of ultrasonographic features and clinical factors affecting the BI-RADS categorization

References

• Chala L, Endo E, Kim S, de Castro F, Moraes P, Cerri G, . Gray-scale sonography of solid breast masses: diagnosis of probably benign masses and reduction of the number of biopsies. J Clin Ultrasound 2007;35:9–19.
   Google Scholar
• Costantini M, Belli P, Ierardi C, Franceschini G, La Torre G, Bonomo L. Solid breast mass characterisation: use of the sonographic BI-RADS classification. Radiol Med 2007;112:877–94.
   Google Scholar
• Graf O, Helbich TH, Fuchsjaeger MH, Hopf G, Morgun M, Graf C, . Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology 2004;233:850–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology 2007;244:87–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1260–5.
   Google Scholar
• Kim EK, Ko KH, Oh KK, Kwak JY, You JK, Kim MJ, . Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:1209–15.
   Google Scholar
• Leung JW, Sickles EA. The probably benign assessment. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45:773–89, vi.
   Google Scholar
• Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE, . Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213:889–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park YM, Kim EK, Lee JH, Ryu JH, Han SS, Choi SJ, . Palpable breast masses with probably benign morphology at sonography: can biopsy be deferred? Acta Radiol 2008;49:1104–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system. Third edition. Reston. VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Shin JH, Han BK, Ko EY, Choe YH, Nam SJ. Probably benign breast masses diagnosed by sonogtaphy: is there a difference in the cancer rate according to palpability? Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:W187–W91.
   Google Scholar
• Caplan LS, Blackman D, Nadel M, Monticciolo DL. Coding mammograms using the classification “probably benign finding – short interval follow-up suggested”. Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:339–42.
   Google Scholar
• Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991;178:155–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:691–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sickles EA. Probably benign breast lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol? Radiology 1999;213:11–14.
   Google Scholar
• Duijm LE, Zaat JO, Guit GL. Nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesions in general practice: the role of follow-up mammography. Br J Gen Pract 1998;48:1421–3.
   Google Scholar
• American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and dara system-magnetic resonance imaging (BI-RADS-MRI). First edition. Reston. VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Leung JW, Sickles EA. Multiple bilateral masses detected on screening mammography: assessment of need for recall imaging. Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:23–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:845–51.
   Google Scholar
• Sickles EA. Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology 1994;192:439–42.
   Google Scholar
• Bray F, McCarron P, Parkin DM. The changing global patterns of female breast cancer incidence and mortality. Breast Cancer Res 2004;6:229–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahn SH, Yoo KY. Chronological changes of clinical characteristics in 31,115 new breast cancer patients among Koreans during 1996–2004. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006;99: 209–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Kao E. Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: inter-observer agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology 2009;252:665–72.
   Google Scholar
• Park CS, Lee JH, Yim HW, Kang BJ, Kim HS, Jung JI, . Observer agreement using the ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-ultrasound, First Edition (2003). Korean J Radiol 2007;8:397–402.
   Google Scholar
• Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Youk JH, Lee JY, Kang DR, . Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2008;65:293–8.
   Google Scholar