4.4 Article

Incidental breast masses detected by computed tomography: are any imaging features predictive of malignancy?

期刊

CLINICAL RADIOLOGY
卷 64, 期 5, 页码 529-533

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2009.01.005

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To review the outcome of further assessment of breast abnormalities detected incidentally by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and to determine whether any MDCT imaging features were predictive of malignancy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The outcome of 34 patients referred to the Primrose Breast Care Unit with breast abnormalities detected incidentally using MDCT was prospectively recorded. Women with a known diagnosis of breast cancer were excluded. CT imaging features and histological diagnoses were recorded and the correlation assessed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of the 34 referred patients a malignant diagnosis was noted in 11 (32%). There were 10 breast malignancies (seven invasive ductal carcinomas, one invasive lobular carcinoma, two metastatic lesions) and one axillary lymphoma. CT features suggestive of breast malignancy were spiculation [6/10 (60%) versus 0/24 (0%) p = 0.0002] and associated axillary lymphadenopathy [3/10 (33%) versus 0/20 (0%) p=0.030]. Conversely, a well-defined mass was suggestive of benign disease (10/24 (42%) versus 0/10 (0%); p = 0.015]. Associated calcification, ill-definition, heterogeneity, size, and multiplicity of lesions were not useful discriminating CT features. There was a non-significant trend for lesions in involuted breasts to be more frequently malignant than in dense breasts [6/14 (43%) versus 4/20 (20%) p = 0.11]. CONCLUSION: In the present series there was a significant rate (32%) of malignancy in patients referred to the breast clinic with CT-detected incidental breast lesions. The CT features of spiculation or axillary lymphadenopathy are strongly suggestive of malignancy. (C) 2009 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据