Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to determine the predictive power of sonographic tumor descriptors in the differentiation of fibroadenoma from invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Three hundred thirty-six tumors (142 fibroadenomas and 194 invasive ductal carcinomas) of the breast diagnosed using sonography were prospectively recorded with respect to the shape, contour, echo texture, echogenicity, sound transmission, and surrounding tissue of the tumors. Evaluation included odds and odds ratios of single sonographic features as well as sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of combinations of features. Tumor descriptors were also evaluated using multiple logistic regression analysis after adjustment for age and clinical examination. RESULTS Irregular shape and contour, extensive hypoechogenicity, shadowing, echogenic halo, and distortion of surrounding tissue were the findings with the highest predictive value of malignancy. A thin echogenic pseudocapsule was the most important sonographic finding predictive of the benign nature of a solid mass. Echo texture was of little value in the differentiation of breast tumors. Age and clinical examination remained important predictors in a clinically referred patient population because a palpable mass in an elderly patient is most likely a carcinoma. We saw considerable overlap of most sonographic features in both benign and malignant tumors. However, using strict sonographic criteria and a combination of descriptors, we found a negative predictive value of 100% in palpable and 96% in impalpable tumors. CONCLUSION A combination of tumor descriptors gave negative predictive values approaching 100%, allowing downgrading of solid breast masses with a high degree of confidence. Extensive sonographic features analysis in patients with indeterminate clinical and mammographic findings has the potential for downgrading a tumor and possibly obviating the need for excision in a subgroup of patients. Further investigations may provide standardization of sonographic descriptor analysis and establishment of the combination of the most predictive features that would be useful in daily practice.

[1]  B B Goldberg,et al.  Ultrasound analysis of 104 primary breast carcinomas classified according to histopathologic type. , 1983, Radiology.

[2]  A. P. Harper,et al.  Ultrasound in the evaluation of solid breast masses. , 1983, Radiology.

[3]  B. Goldberg,et al.  Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonomammography correlated with pathology in 122 patients. , 1983, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  S. Heywang,et al.  Specificity of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of benign breast masses. , 1984, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[5]  I Taylor,et al.  Direct contact B-scan ultrasound in the diagnosis of solid breast masses. , 1986, Clinical radiology.

[6]  V. Jackson,et al.  The spectrum of sonographic findings of fibroadenoma of the breast. , 1985, Investigative radiology.

[7]  W. Leucht,et al.  Diagnostic value of different interpretative criteria in real-time sonography of the breast. , 1988, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[8]  J C Bamber,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of real-time ultrasound features of the breast. , 1988, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[9]  V. Vlaisavljevic Differentiation of solid breast tumors on the basis of their primary echographic characteristics as revealed by real-time scanning of the uncompressed breast. , 1988, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[10]  B. Fornage,et al.  Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonographic appearance. , 1989, Radiology.

[11]  K K Lindfors,et al.  Medullary carcinoma of the breast: mammographic and US appearance. , 1989, Radiology.

[12]  B. Fornage,et al.  Sonographic appearance and ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration biopsy of breast carcinomas smaller than 1 cm3. , 1990, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[13]  V. Jackson The role of US in breast imaging. , 1990, Radiology.

[14]  D M Ikeda,et al.  Quantitative sonographic parameters as a means of distinguishing breast cancers from benign solid breast masses. , 1991, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[15]  K. Dewbury,et al.  Ultrasonic attenuation in fibroadenoma of the breast. , 1992, Clinical radiology.

[16]  J. Elmore,et al.  Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  I. Blickstein,et al.  Echogenicity of fibroadenoma and carcinoma of the breast. Quantitative comparison using gain‐assisted densitometric evaluation of sonograms. , 1995, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[18]  A. Stavros,et al.  Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. , 1995, Radiology.

[19]  D. S. Bell,et al.  Adaptive speckle reduction for improving the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. , 1995, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[20]  C. Metreweli,et al.  Role of high frequency ultrasonography in the evaluation of palpable breast masses in Chinese women: alternative to mammography? , 1996, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[21]  P. Skaane,et al.  Interobserver Variation in the Interpretation of Breast Imaging , 1997, Acta radiologica.

[22]  E. Rubin Six-month follow-up: an alternative view. , 1999, Radiology.