RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768641
Bright Is Not Always Better: A Pictorial Review of Hyperechoic Malignant Breast Masses
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Illustrative Cases and Discussion
- Invasive Lobular Carcinoma
- Invasive Ductal Carcinoma (IDC) and Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)
- Lymphoma
- Metastasis
- Angiosarcoma of the Breast
- Conclusion
- References
Abstract
Hyperechogenic breast lesions are a relatively rare finding at breast ultrasonography and are traditionally thought to be benign. However, hyperechogenicity on the ultrasound alone does not provide enough evidence to rule out malignancy completely. We herein reported a short series of nine cases of echogenic malignant breast lesions, which include invasive ductal carcinoma, ductal carcinoma in situ, invasive lobular carcinoma, angiosarcoma, lymphoma, and metastasis to the breast. Echogenic breast lesions should be carefully evaluated and properly categorized based on any other suspicious sonographic characteristics and must be correlated with mammographic findings and clinical history to lower the threshold for biopsy and avoid delay in diagnosis.
Hyperechogenicity should not be considered as a characteristically benign feature and should not supersede the less specifically benign features of the same lesion on the other examination.
#
Introduction
According to the Breast Imaging Reporting & Data System (BI-RADS) atlas,[1] hyperechogenicity is defined as having increased echogenicity relative to fat or equal to fibroglandular tissue. Hyperechogenicity on breast ultrasound is attributed to the presence of compact adipocytes, dense fibrotic bands, and multiple vascular spaces and has a high negative predictive value for malignancy. Although extremely rare, hyperechoic breast malignancies do exist, and hence hyperechoic lesions should not be completely ignored without a careful search for any suspicious features. Heterogeneity in tumor cellularity, such as cribriform arrangement, solid nests, tubular formation, and a scirrhous pattern of neoplastic cells, results in increased echogenicity of the lesion.[2]
We describe the imaging features of malignant hyperechoic lesions in different cases and the features that prompted us to do their biopsy and thus achieve the correct diagnosis.
#
Illustrative Cases and Discussion
Most breast malignancies have a hypoechoic appearance on ultrasound. The occurrence of hyperechoic malignancies is in the scope of 0.4 to 2%.[3] [4] [5]
Differential diagnoses for malignant hyperechoic lesions include invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), metastasis to the breast, lymphoma, and sarcoma.
#
Invasive Lobular Carcinoma
ILC is the second most common type of breast cancer after IDC.[6] A hypoechoic mass with posterior shadowing is the most prevalent sonographic appearance of an ILC. Additionally, other sonographic presentations include acoustic shadowing without any apparent mass and an ill-defined area of altered echotexture without discernible margins.[7] Less commonly, ILC may be present as a single or multiple well-circumscribed masses. Bilaterality and multiplicity are more common in ILC than in other subtypes of breast cancer.[6]
Rarely, ILC may present as a hyperechoic mass on ultrasound, which may be assigned a false benign diagnosis, especially if mammographic imaging findings are not very suspicious ([Figs. 1], [2], and [3]). In their large series, Jones et al found that 5% of ILC lesions had a hyperechoic appearance.[6] Another study found that 1% of 69 ILC lesions were hyperechoic.[8]
The infiltrative nature of the tumor may explain the echogenic appearance of lobular carcinoma. ILC is composed of noncohesive cells that are arranged in linear rows and extend into adjacent breast parenchyma in a concentric ring pattern surrounding the ducts, which leads to the formation of multiple acoustic reflectors, giving the hyperechoic appearance on sonography.[9]
#
Invasive Ductal Carcinoma (IDC) and Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)
Breast malignancies, regardless of histologic subtype, usually appear hypoechoic on ultrasonography. As compared to ILC, IDC less commonly shows hyperechogenicity on ultrasound. In their study, Skaane and Engedal found that 2% of IDCs were hyperechoic.[3]
It has been hypothesized that hyperechoic breast cancers reflect the heterogeneity of the tumor histology, such as cribriform arrangement, solid nests, tubular formation, and a scirrhous pattern of neoplastic cells.[10]
Hyperechoic IDCs usually harbor one or more suspicious sonographic characteristics such as irregular shape, noncircumscribed margins, nonparallel orientation, posterior acoustic shadowing, abundant vascularization, and the presence of a small central hypoechoic component. Hyperechoic invasive carcinomas and DCIS may also have corresponding alarming mammographic findings such as spiculated margins, architectural distortion, suspicious microcalcification, interval enlargement or new appearance, and lymphadenopathy.[11] But sometimes it may be associated with less suspicious findings, such as focal asymmetry ([Figs. 4], [5], and [6]). Further assessment with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be performed to characterize these lesions and evaluate the extent of the disease.
Hyperechoic invasive carcinomas should be evaluated by using the same suspicious sonographic characteristics that are used to assess hypoechoic breast masses and should be assigned an appropriate American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting & Data System (ACR BI-RADS) category. Hyperechogenicity should not be seen as a definite benign feature and should not be used to supersede other suspicious imaging findings.
#
Lymphoma
Primary lymphoma of the breast is uncommon, accounting for less than 0.5% of all breast malignancies.[10] Breast lymphomas are categorized as primary (only the breast is afflicted) or secondary (at the time of diagnosis, accompanied by extramammary lymphomatous involvement). Diffuse B-cell lymphoma is the most common histologic subtype of breast lymphoma.[12] On ultrasound, breast lymphoma typically presents as single or multiple, oval, circumscribed, hypoechoic, vascular masses; however, they may exhibit mixed echogenic or completely hyperechoic echotexture ([Fig. 7]).[13] Breast lymphoma's hyperechoic character is likely due to the tumor's high cellularity. The presence of posterior acoustic shadowing, which is often found in IDC, is not common with lymphoma.
#
Metastasis
Breast metastases may appear hyperechoic on ultrasonography ([Fig. 8]). Primary tumors that metastasize to the breast include lung, ovarian, and melanoma.[13] Breast metastases are usually bilateral and multifocal, with an approximate incidence of 1.7 to 6.6%.[14] In addition to their rarity, breast metastases have distinct clinicopathologic traits.
Metastatic breast lesions frequently present as circumscribed masses. This may be the result of the development of metastases from a central core of lymphovascular invasion and the peripheral echogenic pattern has been linked to vascularity, hemorrhage, tumor cells, or adipose tissue depending on the primary finding.[15]
#
Angiosarcoma of the Breast
Breast angiosarcoma is an uncommon malignancy that often affects young women. It may develop sporadically or during breast-conserving treatment with radiation therapy. The typical presentation of angiosarcoma on ultrasound is a heterogeneous, hyperechoic, hypervascular mass ([Fig. 9]).[16] Angiosarcoma appears as a hyperechogenic mass due to the presence of abnormal anastomotic vessels and clusters of spindle cells within the tumor.[10] In contrast to low-grade tumors, intermediate-grade and high-grade lesions contain areas of solid neoplastic vascular growth and necrosis, hemorrhage, and infarction.[16] On MRI, angiosarcomas have significant postcontrast enhancement with areas of hemorrhage and cystic cavities that represent venous lakes.[10]
Liposarcoma is an extremely rare kind of breast cancer that manifests as a hyperechoic breast mass on ultrasound. Hyperechogenicity is associated with fat content, but has not been observed in our series.[13] Liposarcomas can occur spontaneously in the stromal breast parenchyma or may arise in phyllodes tumor. Liposarcomas may present as solid masses or as complex cystic and solid masses on ultrasonography.[10]
Malignant lesions are usually heterogeneous, revealing hypoechoic or isoechoic areas within a hyperechoic lesion; uniformly hyperechoic breast malignancies are exceedingly rare and seldom documented.[15] Hyperechoic malignant lesions reveal two predominant patterns: first, a hyperechoic rim with a hypoechoic center corresponding to a central tumor nidus with fibrosis and tumor infiltration at the margin; and second, a “dispersed pattern” where tumor cells and hyperechoic areas are scattered throughout the lesion.[15]
In contrast to invasive carcinomas, breast lymphoma and metastasis to the breast lack suspicious sonographic characteristics such as noncircumscribed margins and irregular shapes. However, lesions are usually hypervascular[12] and are usually picked up on positron emission tomography-computed tomography for the staging of primary cancers as avid lesions. The presence of internal vascularity in a hyperechoic lesion is suspicious and should warrant biopsy.
Hyperechoic lesions should be evaluated by using the same characteristics that are used to assess hypoechoic breast masses and should be assigned an appropriate ACR BI-RADS category.[17]
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves characterization of masses by clarifying benign characteristics of the mass such as the well-defined margin, typical radiolucent halo, and central fat density, allowing for a more confident diagnosis of benignity. DBT can also detect subtle suspicious findings such as an irregular shape, and indistinct or spiculated margins.[18] [19] [20]
#
Conclusion
Although the echo pattern assists in the evaluation of a breast lesion in conjunction with other imaging features, echogenicity alone has a low degree of specificity. A small percentage of breast cancers may present as hyperechoic lesions on ultrasound. A comprehensive ultrasound scan should be performed with a careful search for the presence of suspicious sonographic features such as nonparallel orientation, posterior shadowing, and irregular margins. The patient's demographics, mammographic findings, axillary lymphadenopathy, clinical history, and presence of interval change also must be taken into account.
#
#
Conflict of Interest
None declared.
Author Contributions
S.P. diagnosed cases, collected all images, searched literature, and prepared the manuscript. J.A. diagnosed cases, confirmed diagnosis, searched literature, and reviewed the manuscript. A.M. collected all images and searched literature.
-
References
- 1 D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology; 2013
- 2 Kobayashi T, Shinozaki H, Yomon M. et al. Hyperechoic pattern in breast cancer–its bio-acoustical genesis and tissue characterization. J UOEH 1989; 11 (02) 181-187
- 3 Skaane P, Engedal K. Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170 (01) 109-114
- 4 Linda A, Zuiani C, Lorenzon M. et al. Hyperechoic lesions of the breast: not always benign. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196 (05) 1219-1224
- 5 Soon PS, Vallentine J, Palmer A, Magarey CJ, Schwartz P, Morris DL. Echogenicity of breast cancer: is it of prognostic value?. Breast 2004; 13 (03) 194-199
- 6 Jones KN, Magut M, Henrichsen TL, Boughey JC, Reynolds C, Glazebrook KN. Pure lobular carcinoma of the breast presenting as a hyperechoic mass: incidence and imaging characteristics. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201 (05) W765-9
- 7 Johnson K, Sarma D, Hwang ES. Lobular breast cancer series: imaging. Breast Cancer Res 2015; 17 (01) 94
- 8 Watermann DO, Tempfer C, Hefler LA, Parat C, Stickeler E. Ultrasound morphology of invasive lobular breast cancer is different compared with other types of breast cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005; 31 (02) 167-174
- 9 Cawson JN, Law EM, Kavanagh AM. Invasive lobular carcinoma: sonographic features of cancers detected in a BreastScreen Program. Australas Radiol 2001; 45 (01) 25-30
- 10 Adrada B, Wu Y, Yang W. Hyperechoic lesions of the breast: radiologic-histopathologic correlation. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200 (05) W518-30
- 11 Tiang S, Metcalf C, Dissanayake D, Wylie E. Malignant hyperechoic breast lesions at ultrasound: a pictorial essay. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2016; 60 (04) 506-513E.
- 12 Domchek SM, Hecht JL, Fleming MD, Pinkus GS, Canellos GP. Lymphomas of the breast: primary and secondary involvement. Cancer 2002; 94 (01) 6-13
- 13 Gao Y, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL. Echogenic breast masses at US: to biopsy or not to biopsy?. Radiographics 2013; 33 (02) 419-434
- 14 Vaidya T, Ramani S, Rastogi A. A case series of metastases to the breast from extramammary malignancies. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2018; 28 (04) 470-475
- 15 Kuba MG, Giess CS, Wieczorek TJ, Lester SC. Hyperechoic malignancies of the breast: underlying pathologic features correlating with this unusual appearance on ultrasound. Breast J 2020; 26 (04) 643-652
- 16 Glazebrook KN, Magut MJ, Reynolds C. Angiosarcoma of the breast. Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190 (02) 533-538
- 17 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 (01) 123-134
- 18 Mohindra N, Neyaz Z, Agrawal V, Agarwal G, Mishra P. Impact of addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography in lesion characterization in breast cancer patients. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2018; 8 (01) 33-37
- 19 Choudhery S, Axmacher J, Conners AL, Geske J, Brandt K. Masses in the era of screening tomosynthesis: is diagnostic ultrasound sufficient?. Br J Radiol 2019; 92 (1095): 20180801
- 20 Hooley RJ, Durand MA, Philpotts LE. Advances in digital breast tomosynthesis. Am J Roentgenol 2017; 208 (02) 256-266
Address for correspondence
Publikationsverlauf
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
06. Mai 2023
© 2023. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology; 2013
- 2 Kobayashi T, Shinozaki H, Yomon M. et al. Hyperechoic pattern in breast cancer–its bio-acoustical genesis and tissue characterization. J UOEH 1989; 11 (02) 181-187
- 3 Skaane P, Engedal K. Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170 (01) 109-114
- 4 Linda A, Zuiani C, Lorenzon M. et al. Hyperechoic lesions of the breast: not always benign. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196 (05) 1219-1224
- 5 Soon PS, Vallentine J, Palmer A, Magarey CJ, Schwartz P, Morris DL. Echogenicity of breast cancer: is it of prognostic value?. Breast 2004; 13 (03) 194-199
- 6 Jones KN, Magut M, Henrichsen TL, Boughey JC, Reynolds C, Glazebrook KN. Pure lobular carcinoma of the breast presenting as a hyperechoic mass: incidence and imaging characteristics. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201 (05) W765-9
- 7 Johnson K, Sarma D, Hwang ES. Lobular breast cancer series: imaging. Breast Cancer Res 2015; 17 (01) 94
- 8 Watermann DO, Tempfer C, Hefler LA, Parat C, Stickeler E. Ultrasound morphology of invasive lobular breast cancer is different compared with other types of breast cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005; 31 (02) 167-174
- 9 Cawson JN, Law EM, Kavanagh AM. Invasive lobular carcinoma: sonographic features of cancers detected in a BreastScreen Program. Australas Radiol 2001; 45 (01) 25-30
- 10 Adrada B, Wu Y, Yang W. Hyperechoic lesions of the breast: radiologic-histopathologic correlation. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200 (05) W518-30
- 11 Tiang S, Metcalf C, Dissanayake D, Wylie E. Malignant hyperechoic breast lesions at ultrasound: a pictorial essay. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2016; 60 (04) 506-513E.
- 12 Domchek SM, Hecht JL, Fleming MD, Pinkus GS, Canellos GP. Lymphomas of the breast: primary and secondary involvement. Cancer 2002; 94 (01) 6-13
- 13 Gao Y, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL. Echogenic breast masses at US: to biopsy or not to biopsy?. Radiographics 2013; 33 (02) 419-434
- 14 Vaidya T, Ramani S, Rastogi A. A case series of metastases to the breast from extramammary malignancies. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2018; 28 (04) 470-475
- 15 Kuba MG, Giess CS, Wieczorek TJ, Lester SC. Hyperechoic malignancies of the breast: underlying pathologic features correlating with this unusual appearance on ultrasound. Breast J 2020; 26 (04) 643-652
- 16 Glazebrook KN, Magut MJ, Reynolds C. Angiosarcoma of the breast. Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190 (02) 533-538
- 17 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 (01) 123-134
- 18 Mohindra N, Neyaz Z, Agrawal V, Agarwal G, Mishra P. Impact of addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography in lesion characterization in breast cancer patients. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2018; 8 (01) 33-37
- 19 Choudhery S, Axmacher J, Conners AL, Geske J, Brandt K. Masses in the era of screening tomosynthesis: is diagnostic ultrasound sufficient?. Br J Radiol 2019; 92 (1095): 20180801
- 20 Hooley RJ, Durand MA, Philpotts LE. Advances in digital breast tomosynthesis. Am J Roentgenol 2017; 208 (02) 256-266