Diagnostic ultrasound ( PDFDrive )

CHAPTER 21 The Breast 815
ultrasound beam before moving the eyes to the ultrasound
monitor. Once the needle is within the beam, it is relatively easy
to keep it precisely parallel to the beam. When performing cyst
aspirations and ine-needle aspirations of lymph nodes, the needle
can be placed at a steeper angle, because there is no iring involved
and the needle does not advance past the target. As a result,
there is less risk of injuring underlying chest wall structures.
hat being said, an angle that is too steep will make needle
visualization more challenging.
REFERENCES
1. American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR practice parameter for the
performance of a breast ultrasound examination. 2016. Accessed 8 October
2016. Available from: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/
guidelines/US_Breast.pdf.
2. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts:
detection with screening US—diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics.
Radiology. 1998;207(1):191-199.
3. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening
mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors
that inluence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology.
2002;225(1):165-175.
4. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of
women with dense breast tissue. Radiology. 2001;221(3):641-649.
5. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, et al. Incidental indings on
sonography of the breast: clinical signiicance and diagnostic workup. AJR
Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(4):921-927.
6. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound
and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of
breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151-2163.
7. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition
of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography
in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307(13):
1394-1404.
8. Weigert J, Steenbergen S. he Connecticut experiment: the role of ultrasound
in the screening of women with dense breasts. Breast J. 2012;18(6):
517-522.
9. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, et al. Screening US in patients
with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut
Public Act 09-41. Radiology. 2012;265(1):59-69.
10. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using
automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically
dense breasts. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(3):734-742.
11. Kelly KM, Dean J, Lee SJ, Comulada WS. Breast cancer detection: radiologists’
performance using mammography with and without automated whole-breast
ultrasound. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(11):2557-2564.
12. Giger ML, Inciardi MF, Edwards A, et al. Automated breast ultrasound in
breast cancer screening of women with dense breasts: reader study of
mammography-negative and mammography-positive cancers. AJR Am J
Roentgenol. 2016;206(6):1341-1350.
13. Brem RF, Tabar L, Dufy SW, et al. Assessing improvement in detection of
breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with
dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study. Radiology. 2015;274(3):
663-673.
14. Ramsay DT, Kent JC, Hartmann RA, Hartmann PE. Anatomy of the lactating
human breast redeined with ultrasound imaging. J Anat. 2005;206(6):
525-534.
15. Rahal RM, de Freitas-Junior R, Paulinelli RR. Risk factors for duct ectasia.
Breast J. 2005;11(4):262-265.
16. Shetty MK, Watson AB. Mondor’s disease of the breast: sonographic and
mammographic indings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(4):893-896.
17. American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS-US lexicon classiication
form. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003. Available from:
http://www.acr.org/~/media/acr/documents/pdf/qualitysafety/resources/
birads/uslexiconclass.pdf. Accessed 9 October 2016.
18. Mendelson E, Böhm-Vélez M, Berg W, et al. ACR BI-RADS ultrasound. In:
American College of Radiology, editor. ACR BI-RADS Atlas: breast imaging
reporting and data system. 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology;
2013.
19. Cosgrove DO, Kedar RP, Bamber JC, et al. Breast diseases: color Doppler
US in diferential diagnosis. Radiology. 1993;189(1):99-104.
20. Sehgal CM, Arger PH, Rowling SE, et al. Quantitative vascularity of breast
masses by Doppler imaging: regional variations and diagnostic implications.
J Ultrasound Med. 2000;19(7):427-440.
21. Davoudi Y, Borhani B, Rad M, Matin N. he role of Doppler sonography in
distinguishing malignant from benign breast lesions. J Med Ultrasound.
2014;22(2):92-95.
22. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, Jefrey SS, Jefrey Jr RB. Preliminary experience
with power Doppler imaging of solid breast masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol.
1997;169(3):703-707.
23. Chao TC, Lo YF, Chen SC, Chen MF. Color Doppler ultrasound in benign
and malignant breast tumors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999;57(2):
193-199.
24. Lee SH, Chang JM, Cho N, et al. Practice guideline for the performance of
breast ultrasound elastography. Ultrasonography. 2014;33(1):3-10.
25. Hooley RJ, Scoutt LM, Philpotts LE. Breast ultrasonography: state of the art.
Radiology. 2013;268(3):642-659.
26. Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Dore CJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves
the speciicity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses.
Radiology. 2012;262(2):435-449.
27. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US
elastography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2006;239(2):341-350.
28. Athanasiou A, Tardivon A, Tanter M, et al. Breast lesions: quantitative
elastography with supersonic shear imaging—preliminary results. Radiology.
2010;256(1):297-303.
29. Evans A, Whelehan P, homson K, et al. Invasive breast cancer: relationship
between shear-wave elastographic indings and histologic prognostic factors.
Radiology. 2012;263(3):673-677.
30. Tozaki M, Fukuma E. Pattern classiication of ShearWave Elastography images
for diferential diagnosis between benign and malignant solid breast masses.
Acta Radiol. 2011;52(10):1069-1075.
31. Fleury Ede F, Fleury JC, Piato S, Roveda Jr D. New elastographic classiication
of breast lesions during and ater compression. Diagn Interv Radiol.
2009;15(2):96-103.
32. Kotsianos-Hermle D, Hiltawsky KM, Wirth S, et al. Analysis of 107 breast
lesions with automated 3D ultrasound and comparison with mammography
and manual ultrasound. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71(1):109-115.
33. Kotsianos-Hermle D, Wirth S, Fischer T, et al. First clinical use of a standardized
three-dimensional ultrasound for breast imaging. Eur J Radiol.
2009;71(1):102-108.
34. Wilczek B, Wilczek HE, Rasouliyan L, Leiland K. Adding 3D automated
breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously
and extremely dense breasts: report from a hospital-based, high-volume,
single-center breast cancer screening program. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(9):
1554-1563.
35. Zhang XL, Guan J, Li MZ, et al. Adjunctive targeted contrast-enhanced
ultrasonography for the work-up of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data
System category 3 and 4 lesions. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2016;60(4):
485-491.
36. Du J, Wang L, Wan CF, et al. Diferentiating benign from malignant solid
breast lesions: combined utility of conventional ultrasound and contrastenhanced
ultrasound in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur
J Radiol. 2012;81(12):3890-3899.
37. Luo J, Chen JD, Chen Q, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound improved
performance of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System evaluation of
critical breast lesions. World J Radiol. 2016;8(6):610-617.
38. Xiao X, Dong L, Jiang Q, et al. Incorporating contrast-enhanced ultrasound
into the BI-RADS scoring system improves accuracy in breast tumor
diagnosis: a preliminary study in China. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016;42(11):
2630-2638.
39. Sridharan A, Eisenbrey JR, Dave JK, Forsberg F. Quantitative nonlinear
contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol.
2016;207(2):274-281.