Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Band-Like Interposing Fat along Large Vessels: Ultrasonographic Pseudolesions of the Breast

  • Kang, Bong Joo (Department of Radiology, St. Paul Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Hyeon Sook (Department of Radiology, St. Paul Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Cha, Eun Suk (Department of Radiology, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Jae Hee (Department of Radiology, Human Medical Imaging & Intervention Center) ;
  • Park, Chang Suk (Department of Radiology, St. Paul Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Jung, Na Young (Department of Radiology, St. Paul Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Whang, In Young (Department of Radiology, St. Paul Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Sung Hun (Department of Radiology, St. Paul Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Jae Jeong (Department of Radiology, St. Paul Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Ahwon (Department of Pathology, St. Paul Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2012.09.25
  • Accepted : 2013.05.20
  • Published : 2013.09.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical characteristics and ultrasonographic findings of band-like interposing fat as well as to identify additional approaches for its diagnosis. Materials and Methods: This study included 26 confirmed cases of band-like interposing fat from June 2008 to June 2010. A retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and ultrasonographic findings in these cases. Five radiologists analyzed the ultrasonographic findings, which correlated with the mammographic and MRI findings when available, according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification. Results: None of the 26 patients had any symptoms. In 92.3% of the patients, the lesion was located in the upper outer quadrant of the breast. The mean distance of the lesion from the nipple was 2.4 ${\pm}$ 0.7 cm (1.1-4.5). The mean depth of the lesion from the skin was 1.3 ${\pm}$ 0.3 cm (0.8-2.1). The mean maximal length of the lesion was 0.8 ${\pm}$ 0.4 cm (0.3-1.8). The following were the most frequent ultrasonographic findings of lesions: irregular shape, not parallel orientation, indistinct margins, abrupt interface, hypoechogenicity, no posterior feature, no calcification, and presence of vascularity. The most frequent BI-RADS category was 4a. There were no suspicious findings on the mammography or MRI. Conclusion: Ultrasonographic findings may lead to misclassification of band-like interposing fat as a malignancy. A better understanding of the clinical and ultrasonographic characteristics of band-like interposing fat would facilitate its differentiation from a true mass.

Keywords

References

  1. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer 1995;76:626-630 https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19950815)76:4<626::AID-CNCR2820760413>3.0.CO;2-Z
  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;207:191-199 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.207.1.9530316
  3. Kopans DB, Feig SA, Sickles EA. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer 1996;77:208-209 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960101)77:1<208::AID-CNCR33>3.0.CO;2-7
  4. Sehgal CM, Weinstein SP, Arger PH, Conant EF. A review of breast ultrasound. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2006;11:113-123 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10911-006-9018-0
  5. Spencer GM, Rubens DJ, Roach DJ. Hypoechoic fat: a sonographic pitfall. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:1277-1280 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.164.5.7717247
  6. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174 https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  7. Berg WA. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1225-1228 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801225
  8. 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;196:123-134 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.196.1.7784555
  9. 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;225:165-175 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011667
  10. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33-38 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03540010035027
  11. Cosgrove DO, Kedar RP, Bamber JC, al-Murrani B, Davey JB, Fisher C, et al. Breast diseases: color Doppler US in differential diagnosis. Radiology 1993;189:99-104 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.189.1.8372225
  12. Raza S, Baum JK. Solid breast lesions: evaluation with power Doppler US. Radiology 1997;203:164-168 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.203.1.9122386
  13. Baker JA, Soo MS, Rosen EL. Artifacts and pitfalls in sonographic imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:1261-1266 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.176.5.1761261
  14. Raza S, Goldkamp AL, Chikarmane SA, Birdwell RL. US of breast masses categorized as BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5: pictorial review of factors influencing clinical management. Radiographics 2010;30:1199-1213 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.305095144
  15. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Soo MS, Walsh R, Mengoni P. Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:1621-1625 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.172.6.10350302
  16. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;239:385-391 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2392042127
  17. Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Youk JH, Lee JY, Kang DR, et al. Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2008;65:293-298 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.04.008
  18. Cunningham L. The anatomy of the arteries and veins of the breast. J Surg Oncol 1977;9:71-85 https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.2930090112
  19. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, Jeffrey SS, Jeffrey RB Jr. Preliminary experience with power Doppler imaging of solid breast masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:703-707 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.169.3.9275882
  20. Wilkens TH, Burke BJ, Cancelada DA, Jatoi I. Evaluation of palpable breast masses with color Doppler sonography and gray scale imaging. J Ultrasound Med 1998;17:109-115
  21. Pui MH, Movson IJ. Fatty tissue breast lesions. Clin Imaging 2003;27:150-155 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-7071(02)00536-3

Cited by

  1. Four cases of mimic breast cancer as the location of a penetrating artery vol.45, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3179/jjmu.jjmu.a.119
  2. Hypoechoic lesion with pseudo-distortion on breast ultrasound: Normal anatomical variants? vol.48, pp.5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3179/jjmu.jjmu.a.194