Evaluation of breast mass

Diseases

Summary

Breast masses are a common clinical finding. The majority of palpable breast masses are benign, but 10% of women who present with this finding will have a diagnosis of cancer.[1] Approximately 4% of breast cancers will present with a palpable mass and no mammographic or ultrasonographic evidence of disease.[2]

A delayed or missed breast cancer diagnosis can severely affect patient outcome.

Evaluation of a breast mass is guided by findings on history, physical exam, imaging, and biopsy.[3] A triple test of clinical breast exam, imaging (e.g., mammography and ultrasonography), and needle biopsy can lead to a definitive diagnosis in nearly all cases.[4] [5] [6]

Library

Ultrasonographic image of a simple cyst
Ultrasonographic image of a complex cyst
Ductogram demonstrating multiple intraductal papillomas
Ultrasonographic image of skin thickening in patient with inflammatory breast cancer
Histopathology of classic lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS)
Histopathology of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS)
Patient with inflammatory breast cancer who presented with a shrinking breast
Obvious mass with skin involvement on right breast
Obvious mass with skin involvement on left breast
Patient with large breast mass and retraction at 6 o'clock of left breast, noted on elevating arms
Excoriation of the nipple in a patient with Paget disease
Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) criteria
Magnification view demonstrating irregular spiculated mass with associated calcifications
Screening mammogram demonstrating breast mass
Diagnostic algorithm for breast ultrasound
Breast biopsy techniques (FNA; fine needle aspiration)
Ultrasonographic image of a fibroadenoma
Ultrasonographic image of an invasive carcinoma

Citations

Key Articles

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]

Other Online Resources

US Preventive Services Task Force. BRCA-related cancer: risk assessment, genetic counselling and genetic testing. 2019

Referenced Articles

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.[Abstract][Full Text]
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.[Abstract][Full Text]
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.[Abstract][Full Text]
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.[Abstract][Full Text]
13. Tan BY, Acs G, Apple SK, et al. Phyllodes tumours of the breast: a consensus review. Histopathology. 2016 Jan;68(1):5-21.[Abstract][Full Text]
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.[Abstract][Full Text]
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.[Abstract][Full Text]
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.[Abstract][Full Text]
21. Barber Z, Kosti A, Jones C. Breast metastases from primary lung cancer. BMJ. 2017 Apr 6;357:j1203.[Abstract]
22. Choudhery S, Xiao L, Zingula S. Review of nonmammary metastases to the breast: imaging and clinical presentation. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2021 Jul-Aug;50(4):495-8.[Abstract]
23. DeLair DF, Corben AD, Catalano JP, et al. Non-mammary metastases to the breast and axilla: a study of 85 cases. Mod Pathol. 2013 Mar;26(3):343-9.[Abstract][Full Text]
24. Public Health England. NHS breast screening programme clinical guidance for breast cancer screening assessment. Nov 2016 [internet publication].[Full Text]
25. 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.[Abstract][Full Text]
26. 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]
27. 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]
28. Benson JR, Jatoi I, Keisch M, et al. Early breast cancer. Lancet. 2009 Apr 25;373(9673):1463-79.[Abstract]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. 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.[Abstract][Full Text]
32. Sakorafas GH, Krespis E, Pavlakis G. Risk estimation for breast cancer development; a clinical perspective. Surg Oncol. 2002 May;10(4):183-92.[Abstract]
33. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Menopause: diagnosis and management. Nov 2015 [internet publication].[Full Text]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. Hindle WH. Breast mass evaluation. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Sep;45(3):750-7.[Abstract]
37. Goodson WH 3rd, Hunt TK, Plotnik JN, et al. Optimization of clinical breast examination. Am J Med. 2010 Apr;123(4):329-34.[Abstract]
38. American College of Radiology. ACR appropriateness criteria: palpable breast masses. 2022 [internet publication].[Full Text]
39. 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.[Abstract][Full Text]
40. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, et al. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995 Jan 11;273(2):149-54.[Abstract]
41. 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]
42. 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]
43. 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]
44. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting & data system (BI-RADS®). 2013 [internet publication].[Full Text]
45. 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]
46. 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]
47. American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for the performance of a diagnostic breast ultrasound examination. 2021 [internet publication].[Full Text]
48. 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.[Abstract][Full Text]
49. 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]
50. 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].[Abstract][Full Text]
51. American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for the performance of ultrasound-guided percutaneous breast interventional procedures. 2021 [internet publication].[Full Text]
52. 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]
53. 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]
54. 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]
55. 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]
56. 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.[Abstract][Full Text]
57. 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.[Abstract][Full Text]
58. 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.[Abstract][Full Text]
59. 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.[Abstract][Full Text]
60. 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]
61. 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.[Abstract][Full Text]
62. 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]
63. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Image-guided radiofrequency excision biopsy of breast lesions. Jul 2009 [internet publication].[Full Text]
64. 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]
65. 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]