link
Bookmarks
 (0)
Breast
Lesion Imaging Characteristics
Masses
Spiculated Margins
Spiculated Margins
Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, FACR, FSBI
To access 4,300 diagnoses written by the world's leading experts in radiology, please log in or subscribe.Log inSubscribe
0
16
1
0

KEY FACTS

  • Terminology

    • Imaging

      • Top Differential Diagnoses

        • Pathology

          • Clinical Issues

            TERMINOLOGY

            • Synonyms

              • Stellate margins

            • Definitions

              • Sharp lines radiating from margin of mass
              • May have associated architectural distortion: Retraction of parenchyma and tethering of Cooper ligaments
                • Can be isolated finding (without central mass)

            IMAGING

            • General Features

              • Mammographic Findings

                • Ultrasonographic Findings

                  • MR Findings

                    • Imaging Recommendations

                      DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

                        PATHOLOGY

                        • General Features

                          • Microscopic Features

                            CLINICAL ISSUES

                            • Presentation

                              • Natural History & Prognosis

                                DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST

                                • Consider

                                  • Image Interpretation Pearls

                                    Selected References

                                    1. Wu T et al: Identification of a correlation between the sonographic appearance and molecular subtype of invasive breast cancer: a review of 311 cases. Clin Imaging. 53:179-85, 2019
                                    2. Gity M et al: Diagnostic investigation of breast magnetic resonance imaging in malignant and benign mass lesions. Arch Med Sci. 14(5):1061-9, 2018
                                    3. Vijapura C et al: Imaging features of nonmalignant and malignant architectural distortion detected By Tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 211(6):1397-1404, 2018
                                    4. Wen X et al: Correlations between ultrasonographic findings of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast and intrinsic subtypes. Ultraschall Med. ePub, 2018
                                    5. Woodard GA et al: Qualitative radiogenomics: association between oncotype DX test recurrence score and BI-RADS mammographic and breast MR imaging features. Radiology. 286(1):60-70, 2018
                                    6. Au FW et al: Histological grade and immunohistochemical biomarkers of breast cancer: correlation to ultrasound features. J Ultrasound Med. 36(9):1883-94, 2017
                                    7. Lee SH et al: Imaging features of breast cancers on digital breast tomosynthesis according to molecular subtype: association with breast cancer detection. Br J Radiol. 90(1080):20170470, 2017
                                    8. Navarro Vilar L et al: MR imaging findings in molecular subtypes of breast cancer according to BIRADS system. Breast J. 23(4):421-8, 2017
                                    9. Houssami N et al: Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: A pictorial review of screen-detected cancers and false recalls attributed to tomosynthesis in prospective screening trials. Breast. 26:119-34, 2016
                                    10. Kamal RM et al: Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography? Br J Radiol. 20160157, 2016
                                    11. Liu S et al: Is there a correlation between the presence of a spiculated mass on mammogram and luminal a subtype breast cancer? Korean J Radiol. 17(6):846-52, 2016
                                    12. Irshad A et al: Assessing the role of ultrasound in predicting the biological behavior of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 200(2):284-90, 2013
                                    13. Mendelson EB et al: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Ultrasound. 2nd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013
                                    14. Morris EA et al: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: MRI. 2nd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013
                                    15. Sickles EA et al: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Mammography. 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013
                                    16. Skaane P et al: Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 267(1):47-56, 2013
                                    17. Blaichman J et al: Sonographic appearance of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast according to histologic grade. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 199(3):W402-8, 2012
                                    18. Linda A et al: Nonsurgical management of high-risk lesions diagnosed at core needle biopsy: can malignancy be ruled out safely with breast MRI? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 198(2):272-80, 2012
                                    19. Brennan ME et al: Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol. 27(33):5640-9, 2009
                                    20. Wang Y et al: Estrogen receptor-negative invasive breast cancer: imaging features of tumors with and without human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 overexpression. Radiology. 246(2):367-75, 2008
                                    21. Alexander MC et al: Association of stellate mammographic pattern with survival in small invasive breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 187(1):29-37, 2006
                                    22. Evans AJ et al: Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screening-detected invasive breast cancer? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 187(5):1377-80, 2006
                                    23. Hong AS et al: BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 184(4):1260-5, 2005
                                    24. Liberman L et al: MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 180(4):901-10, 2003
                                    25. Tabár L et al: The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am. 38(4):625-51, 2000
                                    26. Liberman L et al: The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 171(1):35-40, 1998
                                    27. Stavros AT et al: Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 196(1):123-34, 1995
                                    Related Anatomy
                                    Loading...
                                    Related Differential Diagnoses
                                    Loading...
                                    References
                                    Tables

                                    Tables

                                    KEY FACTS

                                    • Terminology

                                      • Imaging

                                        • Top Differential Diagnoses

                                          • Pathology

                                            • Clinical Issues

                                              TERMINOLOGY

                                              • Synonyms

                                                • Stellate margins

                                              • Definitions

                                                • Sharp lines radiating from margin of mass
                                                • May have associated architectural distortion: Retraction of parenchyma and tethering of Cooper ligaments
                                                  • Can be isolated finding (without central mass)

                                              IMAGING

                                              • General Features

                                                • Mammographic Findings

                                                  • Ultrasonographic Findings

                                                    • MR Findings

                                                      • Imaging Recommendations

                                                        DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

                                                          PATHOLOGY

                                                          • General Features

                                                            • Microscopic Features

                                                              CLINICAL ISSUES

                                                              • Presentation

                                                                • Natural History & Prognosis

                                                                  DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST

                                                                  • Consider

                                                                    • Image Interpretation Pearls

                                                                      Selected References

                                                                      1. Wu T et al: Identification of a correlation between the sonographic appearance and molecular subtype of invasive breast cancer: a review of 311 cases. Clin Imaging. 53:179-85, 2019
                                                                      2. Gity M et al: Diagnostic investigation of breast magnetic resonance imaging in malignant and benign mass lesions. Arch Med Sci. 14(5):1061-9, 2018
                                                                      3. Vijapura C et al: Imaging features of nonmalignant and malignant architectural distortion detected By Tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 211(6):1397-1404, 2018
                                                                      4. Wen X et al: Correlations between ultrasonographic findings of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast and intrinsic subtypes. Ultraschall Med. ePub, 2018
                                                                      5. Woodard GA et al: Qualitative radiogenomics: association between oncotype DX test recurrence score and BI-RADS mammographic and breast MR imaging features. Radiology. 286(1):60-70, 2018
                                                                      6. Au FW et al: Histological grade and immunohistochemical biomarkers of breast cancer: correlation to ultrasound features. J Ultrasound Med. 36(9):1883-94, 2017
                                                                      7. Lee SH et al: Imaging features of breast cancers on digital breast tomosynthesis according to molecular subtype: association with breast cancer detection. Br J Radiol. 90(1080):20170470, 2017
                                                                      8. Navarro Vilar L et al: MR imaging findings in molecular subtypes of breast cancer according to BIRADS system. Breast J. 23(4):421-8, 2017
                                                                      9. Houssami N et al: Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: A pictorial review of screen-detected cancers and false recalls attributed to tomosynthesis in prospective screening trials. Breast. 26:119-34, 2016
                                                                      10. Kamal RM et al: Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography? Br J Radiol. 20160157, 2016
                                                                      11. Liu S et al: Is there a correlation between the presence of a spiculated mass on mammogram and luminal a subtype breast cancer? Korean J Radiol. 17(6):846-52, 2016
                                                                      12. Irshad A et al: Assessing the role of ultrasound in predicting the biological behavior of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 200(2):284-90, 2013
                                                                      13. Mendelson EB et al: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Ultrasound. 2nd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013
                                                                      14. Morris EA et al: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: MRI. 2nd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013
                                                                      15. Sickles EA et al: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Mammography. 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013
                                                                      16. Skaane P et al: Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 267(1):47-56, 2013
                                                                      17. Blaichman J et al: Sonographic appearance of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast according to histologic grade. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 199(3):W402-8, 2012
                                                                      18. Linda A et al: Nonsurgical management of high-risk lesions diagnosed at core needle biopsy: can malignancy be ruled out safely with breast MRI? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 198(2):272-80, 2012
                                                                      19. Brennan ME et al: Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol. 27(33):5640-9, 2009
                                                                      20. Wang Y et al: Estrogen receptor-negative invasive breast cancer: imaging features of tumors with and without human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 overexpression. Radiology. 246(2):367-75, 2008
                                                                      21. Alexander MC et al: Association of stellate mammographic pattern with survival in small invasive breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 187(1):29-37, 2006
                                                                      22. Evans AJ et al: Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screening-detected invasive breast cancer? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 187(5):1377-80, 2006
                                                                      23. Hong AS et al: BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 184(4):1260-5, 2005
                                                                      24. Liberman L et al: MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 180(4):901-10, 2003
                                                                      25. Tabár L et al: The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am. 38(4):625-51, 2000
                                                                      26. Liberman L et al: The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 171(1):35-40, 1998
                                                                      27. Stavros AT et al: Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 196(1):123-34, 1995
                                                                      Contact UsStoreTerms and ConditionsRegistered User AgreementPrivacy PolicyHelp