Ultrasound (US) has a significant role in diagnostic breast imaging. It is most commonly used as an adjunctive test in characterizing lesions detected by other imaging modalities or by clinical examination. US is recognized as the modality of choice in the evaluation of women who are symptomatic and younger than 30 years of age, pregnant, or lactating. Combined mammography and US appear to have a role in screening high-risk populations. The use of standard Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System US lexicon is helpful in guiding the differentiation between benign and malignant sonographic signs. Biopsy is warranted when benign features are absent or for any feature consistent with malignancy, despite other benign findings. Whole breast and axillary US are useful in assessing tumour extension, multifocality, and the status of axillary lymph nodes. US is the modality of choice for guiding interventional breast procedures. The role of US as a guidance tool for nonoperative breast treatment is being investigated.
Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS atlas American College of Radiology. BI-RADS Atlas 1st ed. 2003American College of RadiologyReston, VA
2.
HongA.S.RosenE.L.SooM.S.BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic featuresAJR Am J Roentgenol2005; 184:1260–1265.
3.
BergW.A.CampassiC.I.IoffeO.B.Cystic lesions of the breast: sonographic-pathologic correlationRadiology2003; 227:183–191.
4.
VentaL.A.KimJ.P.PelloskiC.E.Management of complex breast cystsAJR Am J Roentgenol1999; 173:1331–1336.
5.
DoshiD.J.MarchD.E.CrisiG.M.Complex cystic breast masses: diagnostic approach and imaging-pathologic correlationRadiographics27Suppl 12007S53–S64.
6.
BergW.A.Sonographically depicted breast clustered microcysts: is follow-up appropriate?AJR Am J Roentgenol2005; 185:952–959.
7.
StavrosA.T.ThickmanD.RappC.L.Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesionsRadiology1995; 196:123–134.
8.
RahbarG.SieA.C.HansenG.C.Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiationRadiology1999; 213:889–894.
9.
GrafO.HelbichT.H.HopfG.Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy?Radiology2007; 244:87–93.
10.
SicklesE.A.Probably benign breast lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol?Radiology1999; 213:11–14.
11.
LeungJ.W.SicklesE.A.Multiple bilateral masses detected on screening mammography: assessment of need for recall imagingAJR Am J Roentgenol2000; 175:23–29.
12.
GrafO.HelbichT.H.FuchsjaegerM.H.Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted?Radiology2004; 233:850–856.
13.
ShinJ.H.HanB.K.KoE.Y.Probably benign breast masses diagnosed by sonography: is there a difference in the cancer rate according to palpability?AJR Am J Roentgenol2009; 192:W187–W191.
14.
SkaaneP.EngedalK.Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinomaAJR Am J Roentgenol1998; 170:109–114.
15.
FoxcroftL.M.EvansE.B.PorterA.J.Difficulties in the pre-operative diagnosis of phyllodes tumours of the breast: a study of 84 casesBreast2007; 16:27–37.
16.
TaboadaJ.L.StephensT.W.KrishnamurthyS.The many faces of fat necrosis in the breastAJR Am J Roentgenol2009; 192:815–825.
17.
RissanenT.ReinikainenH.Apaja-SarkkinenM.Breast sonography in localizing the cause of nipple discharge: comparison with galactography in 52 patientsJ Ultrasound Med2007; 26:1031–1039.
18.
CohenM.A.SferlazzaS.J.Role of sonography in evaluation of radial scars of the breastAJR Am J Roentgenol2000; 174:1075–1078.
19.
KamalR.M.HamedS.T.SalemD.S.Classification of inflammatory breast disorders and step by step diagnosisBreast J2009; 15:367–380.
20.
UlitzschD.NymanM.K.CarlsonR.A.Breast abscess in lactating women: US-guided treatmentRadiology2004; 232:904–909.
21.
MoonW.K.MyungJ.S.LeeY.J.US of ductal carcinoma in situRadiographics2002; 22:269–280.
22.
BergW.A.GilbreathP.L.Multicentric and multifocal cancer: whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation. Radiology2000; 214:59–66.
23.
DedesK.J.FinkD.Clinical presentation and surgical management of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breastBreast Dis2009; 30:31–37.
24.
MoonW.K.NohD.Y.ImJ.G.Multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral breast cancers: bilateral whole-breast US in the preoperative evaluation of patientsRadiology2002; 224:569–576.
25.
Van RijkM.C.DeurlooE.E.NiewegO.E.Ultrasonography and fine-needle aspiration cytology can spare breast cancer patients unnecessary sentinel lymph node biopsyAnn Surg Oncol2006; 13:31–35.
ChoN.MoonW.K.HanW.Preoperative sonographic classification of axillary lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer: node-to-node correlation with surgical histology and sentinel node biopsy resultsAJR Am J Roentgenol2009; 193:1731–1737.
28.
ScatarigeJ.C.BoxenI.SmathersR.L.Internal mammary lymphadenopathy: imaging of a vital lymphatic pathway in breast cancerRadiographics1990; 10:857–870.
29.
WhitmanG.J.StromE.A.Workup and staging of locally advanced breast cancerSemin Radiat Oncol2009; 19:211–221.
30.
ParkerS.H.JobeW.E.DennisM.A.US-guided automated large-core breast biopsyRadiology1993; 187:507–511.
31.
PisanoE.D.FajardoL.L.TsimikasJ.Rate of insufficient samples for fine-needle aspiration for non palpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group 5 Study. The RDOG5 investigatorsCancer1998; 82:679–688.
32.
PisanoE.D.FajardoL.L.CaudryD.J.Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic diagnostic oncology group VRadiology2001; 219:785–792.
33.
ParkerS.H.KlausA.J.McWeyP.J.Sonographically guided directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy using a handheld deviceAJR Am J Roentgenol2001; 177:405–408.
34.
PhilpottsL.E.HooleyR.J.LeeC.H.Comparison of automated versus vacuum-assisted biopsy methods for sonographically guided core biopsy of the breastAJR Am J Roentgenol2003; 180:347–351.
35.
YoukJ.H.KimE.K.KimM.J.Missed breast cancers at US-guided core needle biopsy: how to reduce themRadiographics2007; 27:79–94.
36.
PhillipsS.W.GabrielH.ComstockSonographically guided metallic clip placement after core needle biopsy of the breastAJR Am J Roentgenol2000; 175:1353–1355.
37.
KoellikerS.L.ChungM.A.MainieroM.B.Axillary lymph nodes: US-guided fine-needle aspiration for initial staging of breast cancer—correlation with primary tumor sizeRadiology2008; 246:81–89.
38.
AbeH.SchmidtR.A.KulkarniK.Axillary lymph nodes suspicious for breast cancer metastasis: sampling with US-guided 14-gauge core-needle biopsy-clinical experience in 100 patientsRadiology2009; 250:41–49.
39.
VlastosG.VerkooijenH.M.Minimally invasive approaches for diagnosis and treatment of early-stage breast cancerOncologist2007; 12:1–10.
40.
BurakW.E.Jr.AgneseD.M.PovoskiS.P.Radiofrequency ablation of invasive breast carcinoma followed by delayed surgical excisionCancer2003; 98:1369–1376.
41.
HayashiA.H.SilverS.F.van der WesthuizenN.G.Treatment of invasive breast carcinoma with ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablationAm J Surg2003; 185:429–435.
42.
BradleyW.G.Jr.MR-guided focused ultrasound: a potentially disruptive technologyJ Am Coll Radiol2009; 6:510–513.
43.
ThompsonM.KlimbergV.S.Use of ultrasound in breast surgerySurg Clin North Am2007; 87:469–484.
44.
DooleyW.C.VargasH.I.FennA.J.Microwave thermotherapy for preoperative treatment of invasive breast cancer: a review of clinical studiesAnn Surg Oncol2010; 17:1076–1093.
45.
DestounisS.ArienoA.SomervilleP.A.Community-based practice experience of unsuspected breast magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities evaluated with second-look sonographyJ Ultrasound Med2009; 28:1337–1346.
46.
Ansah-BoatengY.TavassoliF.A.Fibroadenoma and cystosarcoma phyllodes of the male breastMod Pathol1992; 5:114–116.
47.
ChenL.ChantraP.K.LarsenL.H.Imaging characteristics of malignant lesions of the male breastRadiographics2006; 26:993–1006.
48.
ChoN.MoonW.K.ChaJ.H.Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional USRadiology2006; 240:26–32.
49.
ItohA.UenoE.TohnoE.Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosisRadiology2006; 239:341–350.
50.
GruszauskasN.P.DrukkerK.GigerM.L.Breast US computer-aided diagnosis system: robustness across urban populations in South Korea and the United StatesRadiology2009; 253:661–671.
51.
RicciP.CantisaniV.BallesioL.Benign and malignant breast lesions: efficacy of real time contrast-enhanced ultrasound vs. magnetic resonance imagingUltraschall Med2007; 28:57–62.
52.
CrystalP.StranoS.D.ShcharynskiS.Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breastsAJR Am J Roentgenol2003; 181:177–182.
53.
BergW.A.GutierrezL.NessAiverM.S.Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancerRadiology2004; 233:830–849.
54.
BergW.A.BlumeJ.D.CormackJ.B.Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancerJAMA2008; 299:2151–2163.
55.
KellyK.M.DeanJ.ComuladaW.S.Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breastsEur Radiol2010734–742.
