Preview

Variant: 1 Adult female, 40 years of age or older. Palpable breast mass. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Appropriate
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Appropriate
US breast	May Be Appropriate
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Mammography screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided core biopsy breast	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided fine needle aspiration breast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET breast dedicated	Usually Not Appropriate
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 2 Adult female, 40 years of age or older. Palpable breast mass. Mammography findings are suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy (BI-RADS 4 or 5). Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
US breast	Usually Appropriate
Image-guided core biopsy breast	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided fine needle aspiration breast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET breast dedicated	Usually Not Appropriate
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 3 Adult female, 40 years of age or older. Palpable breast mass. Diagnostic mammography, DBT, and US findings are probably benign (BI-RADS 3). Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
Image-guided core biopsy breast	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided fine needle aspiration breast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET breast dedicated	Usually Not Appropriate
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 4 Adult female, 40 years of age or older. Palpable breast mass. Mammography findings are benign (BI-RADS 2) at the site of palpable mass. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
US breast	May Be Appropriate
Image-guided core biopsy breast	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided fine needle aspiration breast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET breast dedicated	Usually Not Appropriate
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 5 Adult female, 40 years of age or older. Palpable breast mass. Mammography findings are negative (BI-RADS 1). Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
US breast	Usually Appropriate
Image-guided core biopsy breast	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided fine needle aspiration breast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET breast dedicated	Usually Not Appropriate
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 6 Adult female, younger than 30 years of age. Palpable breast mass. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
US breast	Usually Appropriate
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate
Mammography screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided core biopsy breast	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided fine needle aspiration breast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET breast dedicated	Usually Not Appropriate
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 7 Adult female, younger than 30 years of age. Palpable breast mass. US findings are suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy (BI-RADS 4 or 5). Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Appropriate
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Appropriate
Image-guided core biopsy breast	Usually Appropriate
Image-guided fine needle aspiration breast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Mammography screening	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET breast dedicated	Usually Not Appropriate
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 8 Adult female, younger than 30 years of age. Palpable breast mass. US findings probably benign (BI-RADS 3). Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate
Mammography screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided core biopsy breast	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided fine needle aspiration breast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET breast dedicated	Usually Not Appropriate
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 9 Adult female, younger than 30 years of age. Palpable breast mass. US findings benign (BI-RADS 2). Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate
Mammography screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided core biopsy breast	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided fine needle aspiration breast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET breast dedicated	Usually Not Appropriate
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 10 Adult female, younger than 30 years of age. Palpable breast mass. US findings negative (BI-RADS 1). Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate
Mammography screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided core biopsy breast	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided fine needle aspiration breast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET breast dedicated	Usually Not Appropriate
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate

Variant: 11 Adult female, 30 to 39 years of age. Palpable breast mass. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category
US breast	Usually Appropriate
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Appropriate
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Appropriate
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Mammography screening	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided core biopsy breast	Usually Not Appropriate
Image-guided fine needle aspiration breast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET breast dedicated	Usually Not Appropriate
Sestamibi MBI	Usually Not Appropriate

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please visit https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

1. [22273849] Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, Sheppard AJ, et al. Favourable prognostic factors of subsequent screen-detected breast cancers among women aged 50-69. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2012;21(6):499-506.
2. [25341156] Lehman CD, Lee AY, Lee CI. Imaging management of palpable breast abnormalities. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(5):1142-53, 2014 Nov.
3. [22160521] Ma I, Dueck A, Gray R, et al. Clinical and self breast examination remain important in the era of modern screening. Ann Surg Oncol. 19(5):1484-90, 2012 May.
4. [30990294] Salzman B, Collins E, Hersh L. Common Breast Problems. [Review]. American Family Physician. 99(8):505-514, 2019 04 15.
5. [7283021] Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Fish EB, Hiraki GY, Lickley HL, Maurer VE. Prospective evaluation of physical examination of the breast. Am J Surg. 1981; 142(3):331-334.
6. [3884906] Rosner D, Blaird D. What ultrasonography can tell in breast masses that mammography and physical examination cannot. J Surg Oncol. 1985; 28(4):308-313.
7. [11274555] Dennis MA, Parker SH, Klaus AJ, Stavros AT, Kaske TI, Clark SB. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump. Radiology 2001; 219(1):186-191.
8. [12355002] Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R, et al. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology. 2002; 225(1):176-181.
9. [12418762] Shetty MK, Shah YP. Prospective evaluation of the value of negative sonographic and mammographic findings in patients with palpable abnormalities of the breast. J Ultrasound Med. 2002; 21(11):1211-1216; quiz 1217-1219.
10. [26341750] Chan CH, Coopey SB, Freer PE, Hughes KS. False-negative rate of combined mammography and ultrasound for women with palpable breast masses. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015;153:699-702.
11. [23345348] Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:291-8.
12. [21998048] Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology. 2012;262(1):61-68.
13. [23255766] Waldherr C, Cerny P, Altermatt HJ, et al. Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:226-31.
14. [24475859] Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 2014;271:664-71.
15. [29174225] Hawley JR, Kang-Chapman JK, Bonnet SE, Kerger AL, Taylor CR, Erdal BS. Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the Evaluation of Palpable Breast Abnormalities. Acad Radiol. 25(3):297-304, 2018 Mar.
16. [26133221] Bansal GJ, Young P. Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings. British Journal of Radiology. 88(1053):20140855, 2015 Sep.
17. [22593120] Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol. 53(5):524-9, 2012 Jun 01.
18. [17350262] Ciatto S, Houssami N. Breast imaging and needle biopsy in women with clinically evident breast cancer: does combined imaging change overall diagnostic sensitivity? Breast. 2007;16(4):382-386.
19. [17929256] Murphy IG, Dillon MF, Doherty AO, et al. Analysis of patients with false negative mammography and symptomatic breast carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2007; 96(6):457-463.
20. [12636326] Shetty MK, Shah YP, Sharman RS. Prospective evaluation of the value of combined mammographic and sonographic assessment in patients with palpable abnormalities of the breast. J Ultrasound Med. 2003; 22(3):263-268; quiz 269-270.
21. [27081707] Leung SE, Ben-Nachum I, Kornecki A. New Palpable Breast Lump With Recent Negative Mammogram: Is Repeat Mammography Necessary?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 207(1):200-4, 2016 Jul.
22. [32023120] Linden OE, Hayward JH, Price ER, Kelil T, Joe BN, Lee AY. Utility of Diagnostic Mammography as the Primary Imaging Modality for Palpable Lumps in Women With Almost Entirely Fatty Breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 214(4):938-944, 2020 04.
23. [28754486] Amitai Y, Menes TS, Weinstein I, Filyavich A, Yakobson I, Golan O. What is the yield of breast MRI in the assessment of palpable breast findings?. Clin Radiol. 72(11):930-935, 2017 Nov.
24. [23046046] Olsen ML, Morton MJ, Stan DL, Pruthi S. Is there a role for magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing palpable breast masses when mammogram and ultrasound are negative? J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2012;21:1149-54.
25. [21477168] Yau EJ, Gutierrez RL, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Peacock S, Lehman CD. The utility of breast MRI as a problem-solving tool. Breast J. 17(3):273-80, 2011 May-Jun.
26. [11348373] Durfee SM, Selland DL, Smith DN, Lester SC, Kaelin CM, Meyer JE. Sonographic Evaluation of Clinically Palpable Breast Cancers Invisible on Mammography. Breast J. 2000;6(4):247-251.
27. [17924407] Garg S, Mohan H, Bal A, Attri AK, Kochhar S. A comparative analysis of core needle biopsy and fine-needle aspiration cytology in the evaluation of palpable and mammographically detected suspicious breast lesions. Diagn Cytopathol. 35(11):681-9, 2007 Nov.
28. [25386875] Schrading S, Distelmaier M, Dirrichs T, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 2015;274(3):654-662.
29. [23252555] Viala J, Gignier P, Perret B, et al. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsies on a digital breast 3D-tomosynthesis system. Breast J. 2013;19(1):4-9.
30. [-3098656] American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Breast Interventional Procedures. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=125+&releaseId=2
31. [27160231] Ly A, Ono JC, Hughes KS, Pitman MB, Balassanian R. Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy of Palpable Breast Masses: Patterns of Clinical Use and Patient Experience. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw.. 14(5):527-36, 2016 05.
32. [-3098654] American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for Performing and Interpreting Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=146+&releaseId=2
33. [16915997] Harvey JA. Sonography of palpable breast masses. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2006; 27(4):284-297.
34. [12034957] Kaiser JS, Helvie MA, Blacklaw RL, Roubidoux MA. Palpable breast thickening: role of mammography and US in cancer detection. Radiology. 2002; 223(3):839-844.
35. [-3098655] American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for the Performance of a Diagnostic Breast Ultrasound Examination. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=124+&releaseId=2
36. [4228709] Barr RG, Zhang Z, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Berg WA. Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial. Radiology. 2013;269(3):701-712.
37. [-3098658] American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Stereotactic/Tomosynthesis-Guided Breast Interventional Procedures. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=65+&releaseId=2
38. [22119297] Gumus H, Gumus M, Mills P, et al. Clinically palpable breast abnormalities with normal imaging: is clinically guided biopsy still required? Clin Radiol. 2012;67(5):437-440.
39. [19933671] Harvey JA, Nicholson BT, Lorusso AP, Cohen MA, Bovbjerg VE. Short-term follow-up of palpable breast lesions with benign imaging features: evaluation of 375 lesions in 320 women. AJR. 2009; 193(6):1723-1730.
40. [23096195] Lehman CD, Lee CI, Loving VA, Portillo MS, Peacock S, DeMartini WB. Accuracy and value of breast ultrasound for primary imaging evaluation of symptomatic women 30-39 years of age. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 199(5):1169-77, 2012 Nov.
41. [2267387] Ciatto S, Bravetti P, Bonardi R, Rosselli del Turco M. The role of mammography in women under 30. Radiol Med. 1990; 80(5):676-678.
42. [1732936] Feig SA. Breast masses. Mammographic and sonographic evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30(1):67-92.
43. [2664867] Harris VJ, Jackson VP. Indications for breast imaging in women under age 35 years. Radiology. 1989; 172(2):445-448.
44. [3763885] Williams SM, Kaplan PA, Petersen JC, Lieberman RP. Mammography in women under age 30: is there clinical benefit? Radiology 1986; 161(1):49-51.
45. [22358028] Checka CM, Chun JE, Schnabel FR, Lee J, Toth H. The relationship of mammographic density and age: implications for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(3):W292-295.
46. [12558355] Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(3):168-175.
48. [26499000] Lee WK, Chung J, Cha ES, Lee JE, Kim JH. Digital breast tomosynthesis and breast ultrasound: Additional roles in dense breasts with category 0 at conventional digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 85(1):291-296, 2016 Jan.
49. [24484063] Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 271(3):655-63, 2014 Jun.
50. [21135519] Liew PL, Liu TJ, Hsieh MC, et al. Rapid staining and immediate interpretation of fine-needle aspiration cytology for palpable breast lesions: diagnostic accuracy, mammographic, ultrasonographic and histopathologic correlations. Acta Cytol. 2011; 55(1):30-37.
51. [22180235] Rosa M, Mohammadi A, Masood S. The value of fine needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis and prognostic assessment of palpable breast lesions. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012; 40(1):26-34.
52. [26274736] Yue D, Swinson C, Ravichandran D. Triple assessment is not necessary in most young women referred with breast symptoms. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015;97(6):466-468.
53. [17690501] Osako T, Iwase T, Takahashi K, et al. Diagnostic mammography and ultrasonography for palpable and nonpalpable breast cancer in women aged 30 to 39 years. Breast Cancer. 2007; 14(3):255-259.
54. [28777649] Brown AL, Phillips J, Slanetz PJ, et al. Clinical Value of Mammography in the Evaluation of Palpable Breast Lumps in Women 30 Years Old and Older. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 209(4):935-942, 2017 Oct.
55. [-3128692] American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination