Evaluation of breast mass

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis [internet publication].Full text

American College of Radiology. ACR appropriateness criteria: palpable breast masses. 2022 [internet publication].Full text

American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for the performance of a diagnostic breast ultrasound examination. 2021 [internet publication].Full text

American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for the performance of ultrasound-guided percutaneous breast interventional procedures. 2021 [internet publication].Full text

1. Barton MB, Elmore JG, Fletcher SW. Breast symptoms among women enrolled in a health maintenance organization: frequency, evaluation, and outcome. Ann Intern Med. 1999 Apr 20;130(8):651-7. Abstract

2. Beyer T, Moonka R. Normal mammography and ultrasonography in the setting of palpable breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2003 May;185(5):416-9. Abstract

3. Practice bulletin no. 164: diagnosis and management of benign breast disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;127(6):e141-56. Abstract

4. Vetto JT, Pommier RF, Schmidt WA, et al. Diagnosis of palpable breast lesions in younger women by the modified triple test is accurate and cost-effective. Arch Surg. 1996 Sep;131(9):967-72. Abstract

5. Vetto JT, Pommier RF, Schmidt WA, et al. Use of the "triple test" for palpable breast lesions yields high diagnostic accuracy and cost savings. Am J Surg. 1995 May;169(5):519-22. Abstract

6. Morris A, Pommier RF, Schmidt WA, et al. Accurate evaluation of palpable breast masses by the triple test score. Arch Surg. 1998 Sep;133(9):930-4.Full text  Abstract

7. American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts and figures 2019-2020. 2019 [internet publication].Full text

8. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jan-Feb;66(1):7-30.Full text  Abstract

9. Dent DM, Cant PJ. Fibroadenoma. World J Surg. 1989 Nov-Dec;13(6):706-10. Abstract

10. Martin PM, Kuttenn F, Serment H, et al. Studies on clinical, hormonal and pathological correlations in breast fibroadenomas. J Steroid Biochem. 1978 Dec;9(12):1251-5. Abstract

11. Dupont WD, Page DL, Parl FF, et al. Long-term risk of breast cancer in women with fibroadenoma. N Engl J Med. 1994 Jul 7;331(1):10-5.Full text  Abstract

12. Nassar A, Visscher DW, Degnim AC, et al. Complex fibroadenoma and breast cancer risk: a Mayo Clinic benign breast disease cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Sep;153(2):397-405.Full text  Abstract

13. Tan BY, Acs G, Apple SK, et al. Phyllodes tumours of the breast: a consensus review. Histopathology. 2016 Jan;68(1):5-21.Full text  Abstract

14. Frantz VK, Pickren JW, Melcher GW, et al. Incidence of chronic cystic disease in so-called "normal" breasts; a study based on 225 postmortem examinations. Cancer. 1951 Jul;4(4):762-83. Abstract

15. Ross RK, Paganini-Hill A, Wan PC, et al. Effect of hormone replacement therapy on breast cancer risk: estrogen versus estrogen plus progestin. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 16;92(4):328-32.Full text  Abstract

16. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, et al. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995 Jul;196(1):123-34. Abstract

17. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis [internet publication].Full text

18. Baker TP, Lenert JT, Parker J, et al. Lactating adenoma: a diagnosis of exclusion. Breast J. 2001 Sep-Oct;7(5):354-7. Abstract

19. Beute BJ, Kalisher L, Hutter RV. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: clinical, pathologic, and mammographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991 Aug;157(2):257-65.Full text  Abstract

20. Winchester DP, Jeske JM, Goldschmidt RA. The diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in-situ of the breast. CA Cancer J Clin. 2000 May-Jun;50(3):184-200.Full text  Abstract

21. Public Health England. NHS breast screening programme clinical guidance for breast cancer screening assessment. Nov 2016 [internet publication].Full text

22. Winchester DJ, Bernstein JR, Jeske JM, et al. Upstaging of atypical ductal hyperplasia after vacuum-assisted 11-gauge stereotactic core needle biopsy. Arch Surg. 2003 Jun;138(6):619-22.Full text  Abstract

23. Guth U, Huang DJ, Huber M, et al. Tumor size and detection in breast cancer: self-examination and clinical breast examination are at their limit. Cancer Detect Prev. 2008;32(3):224-8. Abstract

24. Breen N, Yabroff KR, Meissner HI. What proportion of breast cancers are detected by mammography in the United States? Cancer Detect Prev. 2007;31(3):220-4. Abstract

25. Benson JR, Jatoi I, Keisch M, et al. Early breast cancer. Lancet. 2009 Apr 25;373(9673):1463-79. Abstract

26. Lynch HT, Silva E, Snyder C, et al. Hereditary breast cancer - part I: diagnosing hereditary breast cancer syndromes. Breast J. 2008 Jan-Feb;14(1):3-13. Abstract

27. Dupont WD, Page DL. Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med. 1985 Jan 17;312(3):146-51. Abstract

28. Marshall LM, Hunter DJ, Connolly JL, et al. Risk of breast cancer associated with atypical hyperplasia of lobular and ductal types. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997 May;6(5):297-301.Full text  Abstract

29. Sakorafas GH, Krespis E, Pavlakis G. Risk estimation for breast cancer development; a clinical perspective. Surg Oncol. 2002 May;10(4):183-92. Abstract

30. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Menopause: diagnosis and management. Nov 2015 [internet publication].Full text

31. de Villiers TJ, Hall JE, Pinkerton JV, et al. Revised global consensus statement on menopausal hormone therapy. Climacteric. 2016 Aug;19(4):313-5. Abstract

32. Shapley M, Mansell G, Jordan JL, et al. Positive predictive values of ≥5% in primary care for cancer: systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2010 Sep;60(578):e366-77. Abstract

33. Hindle WH. Breast mass evaluation. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Sep;45(3):750-7. Abstract

34. Goodson WH 3rd, Hunt TK, Plotnik JN, et al. Optimization of clinical breast examination. Am J Med. 2010 Apr;123(4):329-34. Abstract

35. American College of Radiology. ACR appropriateness criteria: palpable breast masses. 2022 [internet publication].Full text

36. Malur S, Wurdinger S, Moritz A, et al. Comparison of written reports of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance mammography for preoperative evaluation of breast lesions, with special emphasis on magnetic resonance mammography. Breast Cancer Res. 2001;3(1):55-60.Full text  Abstract

37. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, et al. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995 Jan 11;273(2):149-54. Abstract

38. Kacl GM, Liu P, Debatin JF, et al. Detection of breast cancer with conventional mammography and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 1998;8(2):194-200. Abstract

39. Bone B, Pentek Z, Perbeck L, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography and contrast-enhanced MR imaging in 238 histologically verified breast lesions. Acta Radiol. 1997 Jul;38(4 pt 1):489-96. Abstract

40. Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Ljung BM, et al. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Aug 19;139(4):274-84. Abstract

41. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting & data system (BI-RADS®). ​2013 [internet publication].Full text

42. Cox B, Ballard-Barbash R, Broeders M, et al; International Cancer Screening Network. Recording of hormone therapy and breast density in breast screening programs: summary and recommendations of the International Cancer Screening Network. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Dec;124(3):793-800. Abstract

43. Woods RW, Sisney GS, Salkowski LR, et al. The mammographic density of a mass is a significant predictor of breast cancer. Radiology. 2011 Feb;258(2):417-25. Abstract

44. American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for the performance of a diagnostic breast ultrasound examination. 2021 [internet publication].Full text

45. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):165-75.Full text  Abstract

46. Max MH, Klamer TW. Breast cancer in 120 women under 35 years old: a 10-year community-wide survey. Am Surg. 1984 Jan;50(1):23-5. Abstract

47. Loibl S, André F, Bachelot T, et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2023 Dec 8 [Epub ahead of print].Full text  Abstract

48. American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for the performance of ultrasound-guided percutaneous breast interventional procedures. 2021 [internet publication].Full text

49. Gong X, Xu Q, Xu Z, et al. Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Nov;130(1):11-8. Abstract

50. Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH, et al. Ultrasonographic differentiation of malignant from benign breast lesions: a meta-analytic comparison of elasticity and BIRADS scoring. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 May;133(1):23-35. Abstract

51. Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH, et al. Accuracy of quantitative ultrasound elastography for differentiation of malignant and benign breast abnormalities: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Aug;134(3):923-31. Abstract

52. Medeiros LR, Duarte CS, Rosa DD, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance in suspicious breast lesions: a systematic quantitative review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Apr;126(2):273-85. Abstract

53. Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, et al. Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology. 2008 Jan;246(1):116-24.Full text  Abstract

54. Hassan HHM, El Abd AM, Abdel Bary A, et al. Fat necrosis of the breast: magnetic resonance imaging characteristics and pathologic correlation. Acad Radiol. 2018 Aug;25(8):985-92.Full text  Abstract

55. Siu AL; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16;164(4):279-96.Full text  Abstract

56. Chen X, Li WL, Zhang YL, et al. Meta-analysis of quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. BMC Cancer. 2010 Dec 29;10:693.Full text  Abstract

57. Akçil M, Karaağaoğlu E, Demirhan B. Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration cytology of palpable breast masses: an SROC curve with fixed and random effects linear meta-regression models. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008 May;36(5):303-10. Abstract

58. Yu YH, Wei W, Liu JL. Diagnostic value of fine-needle aspiration biopsy for breast mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2012 Jan 25;12:41.Full text  Abstract

59. Yu YH, Liang C, Yuan XZ. Diagnostic value of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for breast carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Apr;120(2):469-79. Abstract

60. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Image-guided radiofrequency excision biopsy of breast lesions. Jul 2009 [internet publication].Full text

61. Hahn M, Krainick-Strobel U, Toellner T, et al. Interdisciplinary consensus recommendations for the use of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy under sonographic guidance: first update 2012. Ultraschall Med. 2012 Aug;33(4):366-71. Abstract

62. Hindle WH, Arias RD, Florentine B, et al. Lack of utility in clinical practice of cytologic examination of nonbloody cyst fluid from palpable breast cysts. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Jun;182(6):1300-5. Abstract