XXXX of the breast: imaging features in 15 cases.

@entity1 @entity1137 @entity1373 @entity189 @entity1463 @entity1557
OBJECTIVE: @entity1137 is an infrequent benign lesion of the breast, defined as prominent @entity1373 of the lobules with @entity1463 of the interlobular stroma. It commonly presents as a tumorlike mass clinically. @entity1137 has been identified at biopsy at our institution with rare but increasing frequency. We reviewed the imaging features of 15 @entity1 with biopsy-proven @entity1137 to determine if a characteristic imaging pattern could suggest this diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mammograms and sonograms of all @entity1 with pathologically proved @entity1137 seen between January 1986 and June 1993 were retrospectively reviewed by two of the authors who were familiar with the pathologic diagnosis. Imaging findings that led to biopsy or were present on the preoperative studies were reviewed. The study included 15 @entity1 ranging in age from 21 to 46 years old, with a mean age of 32 years. Seven were black, and eight were white. All @entity1 had mammograms, three @entity1 had prior mammograms for comparison, and sonography was done in all but one case. Presenting symptoms included a recently discovered breast lump in eight @entity1 , breast tenderness in one @entity1 , and a clear nipple discharge in one @entity1 . The other five were asymptomatic and had screening mammograms. RESULTS: Eight @entity1 (53%) had a well-defined mass on mammography, varying in size from 1.0 cm to 8.0 cm (mean, 3.7 cm). In one of these @entity1 , the nodule was proved to be a @entity1557 ; @entity1137 was found only microscopically. Microcalcifications were present within the mass on mammography in one @entity1 . Mammograms in two @entity1 showed asymmetric increased density compared with the opposite breast, and in five cases, the mammographic findings were interpreted as normal. Sonograms showed a solid, well-defined mass with either homogeneous or mixed echoes in 10 of 14 @entity1 (71%). In only one of these nodules was acoustic enhancement present. In the other four @entity1 , sonograms were normal. No characteristic findings were identified that would suggest @entity1137 as a likely diagnosis preoperatively, and, in fact, in many cases a diagnosis of @entity1557 was considered most probable. CONCLUSION: The imaging findings of @entity1137 are not sufficiently characteristic to distinguish the lesion from @entity1557 and well-circumscribed @entity189 .
