Breast Nodules: Follow-Up and Evaluation Guidelines - Surgery

Share to:

Breast nodule


Hello Doctor, here are the recent two breast ultrasound reports:
112/08/10
Clinical history: for health examination.
Sonography of the breasts was performed.
The result showed: Normal echotexture of bilateral breasts with normal glandular tissue and fat.
Hypoechoic nodules over R/9/0.5 (10.2x4.2mm with increased vascularity), R/9-10/2 (7.8x3.5mm), R/9-10/3 (9.7x4.1mm, lobulated), L/1-2/3 (7.9x3.2mm), L/3/4 (4.9x2.3mm).
No abnormal enlarged lymph nodes in the bilateral axillary regions.
IMP: Suspicious nodular lesion over R/9/0.5.
BIRADS 4a suggests close follow-up or further evaluation.
Bilateral breast nodules and cysts.
BI-RADS category 3 suggests follow-up in 6 months and correlation with mammography for the calcifications.
113/01/22
Clinical history: for breast nodules follow-up.
Sonography of the breasts was performed.
The result showed: Normal echotexture of bilateral breasts with normal glandular tissue and fat.
Hypoechoic nodules over R/9/0.5 (10.2x2.8mm with increased vascularity), R/9-10/2 (7x3.3mm, with mildly increased vascularity), R/9-10/3 (10x4.1mm, lobulated), L/1-2/3 (6x2.9mm), L/3/4 (4.3x2.1mm).
No abnormal enlarged lymph nodes in the bilateral axillary regions.
IMP: Suspicious nodular lesions over R/9/0.5 and R/9-10/2, stationary in size.
BIRADS 4a suggests close follow-up or further evaluation.
Bilateral breast nodules and cysts.
BI-RADS category 3 suggests follow-up in 6 months and correlation with mammography for the calcifications.
Doctor, the above are the recent two breast ultrasound reports.
The report from 112/08/10 indicates a suspicious nodule at R/9/0.5, while the report from 113/01/22 shows two suspicious nodules at R/9/0.5 and R/9-10/2.
I would like to ask the following questions:
(1) Although the follow-up results show no significant change in the size of the nodules, they remain suspicious due to the presence of blood flow, correct?
(2) Is it sufficient to follow up on the BIRADS 4a nodules every six months, or is a biopsy necessary?
(3) Both reports mentioned correlating with mammography for calcifications.
Is this because the ultrasound detected calcifications? Thank you, Doctor.

Liú, 40~49 year old female. Ask Date: 2024/01/24

Dr. Chen Jiaming reply Surgery


Some breast specialists consider the presence of blood flow measured within or around a mass as an abnormal sign (although most benign tumors also have internal blood supply).
This may be why your examining physician regarded these nodules as suspicious (category 4a).
For category 4a lesions, the standard recommendation is to proceed with a biopsy; however, your physician did not arrange for this, indicating that they likely assess the malignancy potential of this lesion to be relatively low (categories 4a/4b/4c represent varying degrees of suspicion).
The report regarding calcifications typically suggests comparing with other breast imaging (ultrasound relative to mammography) for further evaluation.
Among the various findings in mammography, clustered microcalcifications are the most commonly associated with a high suspicion of malignancy.
Therefore, the standard content aims to encourage clinicians to compare previous/current mammograms to see if there are any additional factors that could increase suspicion, which would then warrant further biopsy or intervention.
This feedback is for your consideration; ultimately, only your clinical physician can comprehensively assess your actual imaging findings.
The report itself is quite rigid, so there is no need to be anxious about it.

Reply Date: 2024/01/24

More Info


Understanding breast nodules and their follow-up is crucial for effective management and early detection of potential malignancies. Based on the ultrasound reports you provided, there are several important points to consider regarding the evaluation and management of the nodules.

1. Suspicious Nodules and Blood Flow: The presence of blood flow in a nodule, as indicated by Doppler ultrasound, can indeed raise suspicion for malignancy. In your case, the nodule at R/9/0.5 showed increasing flow, which is a characteristic that often warrants closer scrutiny. While the size of the nodules has remained stable over the follow-up period, the fact that they are still classified as suspicious suggests that they possess features that could potentially indicate malignancy. Therefore, even if there is no significant change in size, the presence of blood flow is a factor that should be taken seriously.

2. BI-RADS 4a Management: The BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) classification is a standardized system used to categorize breast imaging findings. A BI-RADS 4a designation indicates that there is a low suspicion of malignancy (2-10% chance), but further evaluation is recommended. In this case, the recommendation for close follow-up is appropriate, and it is common practice to monitor such nodules with repeat imaging, typically every 6 months. However, if there are any changes in the nodules' characteristics, such as increased blood flow, size, or morphology, a biopsy may be warranted to obtain a definitive diagnosis. The decision to perform a biopsy should be made in consultation with your healthcare provider, taking into account your personal risk factors and the characteristics of the nodules.

3. Calcifications and Further Evaluation: The mention of correlating with mammography for calcifications suggests that there may be areas of concern that were not fully evaluated on ultrasound. Calcifications can sometimes indicate the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or other abnormalities that may not be visible on ultrasound. If the mammogram shows calcifications, it may necessitate further evaluation, possibly including a targeted biopsy of the area where calcifications are present. It’s important to discuss the findings of the mammogram with your physician to understand their implications fully.

In summary, while the nodules you have are currently being monitored, their characteristics—especially the presence of blood flow—warrant careful attention. Regular follow-up imaging is essential, and any changes should prompt further evaluation, including the possibility of a biopsy. Additionally, the correlation with mammography findings is important for a comprehensive assessment of your breast health. Always feel free to discuss any concerns or questions with your healthcare provider, as they can provide personalized guidance based on your specific situation and medical history.

Similar Q&A

Understanding Breast Nodules: When to Seek Further Evaluation

Hello Doctor, I discovered breast nodules during company health check-ups in 2015 (at age 25) and 2017 (at age 27). One nodule measured approximately 1.5 cm with irregular borders, and there were two others measuring 0.6 cm each. After both check-ups, I had follow-up visits (with...


Dr. Yuan Tianmin reply Breast and Thyroid
In fact, benign nodules that have undergone biopsy still have a very small possibility of subsequent biopsies revealing malignancy. As for breast ultrasound during pregnancy, it is recommended to wait until after childbirth to perform the procedure for more accurate results.

[Read More] Understanding Breast Nodules: When to Seek Further Evaluation


Understanding Breast Lumps: Follow-Up and Testing Recommendations

Hello Doctor: Previously, I experienced left chest pain and went to the hospital for a breast examination. An ultrasound revealed an unexpected irregularly shaped mass (with unclear margins) approximately 1.3 cm in size located on the side of the right nipple, while no abnormalit...


Dr. Wu Jingtang reply Breast and Thyroid
Dear Miss, The ultrasound examination revealed an irregular mass approximately 1.3 cm on the lateral edge of the right nipple, with indistinct borders. The cytological aspiration biopsy showed no abnormalities. Generally speaking, you can feel somewhat reassured; however, I wou...

[Read More] Understanding Breast Lumps: Follow-Up and Testing Recommendations


Understanding Your Mammogram Report: What Mild Regressive Changes Mean

Hello Dr. Wang, this year I had a mammogram, and the report contains a section that says: "Mammographic lesions: Mild regressive change of the previous irregular equal-density nodule in the lower portion of the left breast, middle third, only seen on the MLO view." What...


Dr. Wang Yifen reply Radiology
Hello, the report generated by the physician includes descriptions of the imaging findings, comparisons with previous images, and the physician's final conclusions regarding the classification of the imaging results and recommendations for follow-up. According to the America...

[Read More] Understanding Your Mammogram Report: What Mild Regressive Changes Mean


Understanding Breast Blisters: Risks, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options

Hello Doctor, two years ago I started experiencing chest pain, so I went to see a doctor. Six months ago, I discovered several cysts in my left breast, which had increased compared to the previous year. Therefore, I decided to follow up again after six months. A few days ago, I c...


Dr. Li Zhonghuai reply Surgery
Hello! If there are many fibrocystic changes, it is recommended to follow up. Of course, if there is abundant blood flow nearby, taking a biopsy from that particular cyst will give you more peace of mind. The likelihood of it being significant is mainly for research purposes; eve...

[Read More] Understanding Breast Blisters: Risks, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options


Related FAQ

Breast Lump

(Surgery)

Nipple Lump

(Surgery)

Breast Examination

(Plastic Surgery)

Axillary Lump

(Surgery)

Fibroadenoma

(Surgery)

Fibroadenoma

(Breast and Thyroid)

Breast Size

(Surgery)

Fibrocystic Breast Disease

(Surgery)

Nipple

(Surgery)

Accessory Breast

(Surgery)