Ultrasonography and histology correlation in BI-RADS 4/5 small breast lesions among Thai patients

1. Chaiwerawattana A. Breast. In: Khuhaprema T, Srivatanakul P, Sriplung H, Wiangnon S, Sumitsawan Y, Attasara P, editors. Cancer in Thailand Vol.4. Bangkok: National Cancer Institute; 2007; p. 48-50.Search in Google Scholar

2. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berlière M, Berg BV, D’Hoore W, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 180:1675-9.10.2214/ajr.180.6.1801675Search in Google Scholar

3. Uchida K, Yamashita A, Kawase K, Kamiya K. Screening ultrasonography revealed 15% of mammographically occult breast cancers. Breast Cancer. 2008; 15:165-8.10.1007/s12282-007-0024-xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

4. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-DollP, Dünser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with highresolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2000; 21:325-36.10.1016/S0887-2171(00)90027-1Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

5. Boonjunwetwat D, Thakhulee A, Prueksadee J. Mammographic parenchymal patterns of 1,666 Thai women: A mammographic screening evaluation. Chula Med J. 2010; 54: 303-12.Search in Google Scholar

6. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995; 196:123-34.10.1148/radiology.196.1.77845557784555Search in Google Scholar

7. American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADSUltrasound Lexicon [online]. 2003 [cited 2008 Feb 25]. Available from: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/BIRADSAtlas/BIRADSAtlasexcerptedtext/BIRADSUltrasoundFirstEdition/ACRBIRADSUSLexiconClassificationFormDoc1.aspx.Search in Google Scholar

8. Jackson VP. Management of solid breast nodules: what is the role of sonography? Radiology. 1995; 196:14-5.Search in Google Scholar

9. Hall FM. Sonography of the breast: controversies and opinions. Am J Roentgenol. 1997; 169:1635-6.10.2214/ajr.169.6.93931819393181Search in Google Scholar

10. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology. 1999; 213:889-94.10.1148/radiology.213.3.r99dc2088910580971Search in Google Scholar

11. Harper PA, Kelly-Fry E, Noe JS, Bies JR, Jackson VP. Ultrasound in the evaluation of solid breast masses. Radiology. 1983; 146:731-6.10.1148/radiology.146.3.62988586298858Search in Google Scholar

12. Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184: 1260-5.10.2214/ajr.184.4.0184126015788607Search in Google Scholar

13. Lee W-J, Chu J-S, Huang C-S, Chang M-F, Chang K-J, Chen K-M. Breast cancer vascularity: color Doppler sonography and histopathology study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1996; 37:291-8.10.1007/BF018065108825140Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

14. Jackson VP, Kelly-Fry E, Rothschild PA, Hoiden RW, Clark SA. Automated breast sonography using a 7.5 MHz PVDF transducer: preliminary clinical evaluation. Radiology. 1986; 159:679-84.10.1148/radiology.159.3.35179523517952Search in Google Scholar

15. Lambie RW, Hodgden K, Herman EM, Kipperman M. Sonomammographic manifestations of mammographically detectable breast microcalcifications. J Ultrasound Med. 1983; 2:509-14.10.7863/jum.1983.2.11.509Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

16. Kasumi F. Can microcalcifications located within breast carcinomas be detected by ultrasound imaging?. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1988; 14(Suppl 1):175-82.10.1016/0301-5629(88)90060-9Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

17. Guyer PB, Dewbury KC, Warwick D, Smallwood J, Taylor I. Direct contact B-scan ultrasound in the diagnosis of solid breast masses. Clin Radiol. 1986; 37: 451-8.10.1016/S0009-9260(86)80053-8Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

18. Fornage BD, Lorigan JG, Andry E. Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonographic appearance. Radiology. 1989; 172:671-5.10.1148/radiology.172.3.2549564Search in Google Scholar

19. Teubner J. The echogenic border: an important diagnostic criterion in sonographic tumor diagnosis of the breast. In: Gill RW, Dadd MJ, editors. World Fed Ultrasound Med Biol. Oxford:Pergamon; 1985. p. 342.Search in Google Scholar

20. Bamber JC, De Gonzalez L, Cosgrove DO, Simmons P, Davey J, Mckinna JA. Quantitative evaluation of realtime ultrasound features of the breast. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1988; 14:81-7.10.1016/0301-5629(88)90050-6Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

21. Kasumi F, Fukami A, Kuno K, Kajitani T. Characteristic echographic features of circumscribed cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1982; 8:369-77.10.1016/S0301-5629(82)80004-5Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

22. Cole-Beuglet C, Soriano RZ, Kurtz AB, Goldberg BB. Ultrasound analysis of 104 primary breast carcinomas classified according to histopathologic type. Radiology. 1983; 147:191-6.10.1148/radiology.147.1.68287276828727Search in Google Scholar

23. Venta LA, Dudiak CM, Salomon CG, Flisak ME. Sonographic evaluation of the breast. Radio Graphics. 1994; 14:29-50.10.1148/radiographics.14.1.81280648128064Search in Google Scholar

24. Ueno E, Tohno E, Itoh K. Classification and diagnostic criteria in breast echography. Jpn J Med Ultrasonics. 1986; 13:19-31.Search in Google Scholar

25. Baum G. Ultrasound mammography. Radiology. 1977; 122:199-205.10.1148/122.1.199186842Search in Google Scholar

26. Meyer JE, Amin E, Lindfors KK, Lipman JC, Stomper PC, Genest D. Medullary carcinoma of the breast: mammographic and US appearance. Radiology. 1989; 170:79-82.10.1148/radiology.170.1.26423502642350Search in Google Scholar