» Articles » PMID: 28473077

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Palpable Breast Masses

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Radiology
Date 2017 May 6
PMID 28473077
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common female malignancy and the second leading cause of female cancer death in the United States. Although the majority of palpable breast lumps are benign, a new palpable breast mass is a common presenting sign of breast cancer. Any woman presenting with a palpable lesion should have a thorough clinical breast examination, but because many breast masses may not exhibit distinctive physical findings, imaging evaluation is necessary in almost all cases to characterize the palpable lesion. Recommended imaging options in the context of a palpable mass include diagnostic mammography and targeted-breast ultrasound and are dependent on patient age and degree of radiologic suspicion as detailed in the document Variants. There is little role for advanced technologies such as MRI, positron emission mammography, or molecular breast imaging in the evaluation of a palpable mass. When a suspicious finding is identified, biopsy is indicated. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Citing Articles

Prediction of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status in breast cancer by mammographic radiomics features and clinical characteristics: a multicenter study.

Deng Y, Lu Y, Li X, Zhu Y, Zhao Y, Ruan Z Eur Radiol. 2024; 34(8):5464-5476.

PMID: 38276982 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10607-9.


Triple assessment breast clinics: The value of clinical core biopsies.

Maha R, Alison J, Michael S, Manvydas V Ir J Med Sci. 2023; 193(2):565-570.

PMID: 37550600 PMC: 10961266. DOI: 10.1007/s11845-023-03445-z.


Role of duct excision surgery in the treatment of pathological nipple discharge and detection of breast carcinoma: systematic review.

Makineli S, van Wijnbergen J, Vriens M, van Diest P, Witkamp A BJS Open. 2023; 7(4).

PMID: 37459137 PMC: 10351572. DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad066.


No sonographer, no radiologist: Assessing accuracy of artificial intelligence on breast ultrasound volume sweep imaging scans.

Marini T, Castaneda B, Parker K, Baran T, Romero S, Iyer R PLOS Digit Health. 2023; 1(11):e0000148.

PMID: 36812553 PMC: 9931251. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000148.


Comparison of emergency pediatric breast ultrasound interpretations and management recommendations between pediatric radiologists and breast imaging radiologists.

Nguyen D, Ambinder E, Mullen L, Oluyemi E, Dunn E Emerg Radiol. 2022; 29(6):987-993.

PMID: 35971026 PMC: 9643177. DOI: 10.1007/s10140-022-02081-x.