The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis have been developed to facilitate clinical decision making. This manuscript discusses the diagnostic evaluation of individuals with suspected breast cancer due to either abnormal imaging and/or physical findings. For breast cancer screening recommendations, please see the full guidelines on NCCN.org.

Please NoteThe NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) are a statement of consensus of the authors regarding their views of currently accepted approaches to treatment. Any clinician seeking to apply or consult the NCCN Guidelines® is expected to use independent medical judgment in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine any patient's care or treatment. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) makes no representation or warranties of any kind regarding their content, use, or application and disclaims any responsibility for their applications or use in any way. The full NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis are not printed in this issue of JNCCN but can be accessed online at NCCN.org.© National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines and the illustrations herein may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Disclosures for the NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis PanelAt the beginning of each NCCN Guidelines panel meeting, panel members review all potential conflicts of interest. NCCN, in keeping with its commitment to public transparency, publishes these disclosures for panel members, staff, and NCCN itself.Individual disclosures for the NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel members can be found on page 1389. (The most recent version of these guidelines and accompanying disclosures are available on the NCCN Web site at NCCN.org.)These guidelines are also available on the Internet. For the latest update, visit NCCN.org.
NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel Members*Therese B. Bevers, MD/ChairÞThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center*Mark Helvie, MD/Vice-ChairфÞUniversity of Michigan Rogel Cancer CenterErmelinda Bonaccio, MDфRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer CenterKristine E. Calhoun, MD¶University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care AllianceMary B. Daly, MD, PhD†Fox Chase Cancer CenterWilliam B. Farrar, MD¶The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research InstituteJudy E. Garber, MD, MPH†Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer CenterRichard Gray, MD¶Mayo Clinic Cancer CenterCaprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH¶University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer CenterRachel Greenup, MD, MPH¶Duke Cancer InstituteNora M. Hansen, MD¶Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern UniversityRandall E. Harris, MD, PhDÞ≠The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research InstituteAlexandra S. Heerdt, MD¶Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterTeresa Helsten, MD†UC San Diego Moores Cancer CenterLinda Hodgkiss, MDфSt. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science CenterTamarya L. Hoyt, MDфVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer CenterJohn G. Huff, MDфVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer CenterLisa Jacobs, MD¶The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns HopkinsConstance Dobbins Lehman, MD, PhDфMassachusetts General Hospital Cancer CenterBarbara Monsees, MDфSiteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of MedicineBethany L. Niell, MD, PhDфMoffitt Cancer CenterCatherine C. Parker, MD¶University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer CenterMark Pearlman, MDΩ¶University of Michigan Rogel Cancer CenterLiane Philpotts, MDфYale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer HospitalLaura B. Shepardson, MDфCase Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer InstituteMary Lou Smith, JD, MBA¥Research Advocacy NetworkMatthew Stein, MDфHuntsman Cancer Institute at the University of UtahLusine Tumyan, MDфCity of Hope National Medical CenterCheryl Williams, MDфFred & Pamela Buffett Cancer CenterNCCN Staff: Mary Anne Bergman, and Rashmi Kumar, PhDKEY:* Discussion Section Writing CommitteeSpecialties: ¶Surgery/Surgical Oncology; †Medical Oncology; ÞInternist/Internal Medicine, Including Family Practice, Preventive Management; ΩGynecologic Oncology/Gynecology; ф Diagnostic/Interventional Radiology; ≠Pathology; ¥Patient Advocacy
  • 1.

    American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2009–2010. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc.; 2009.

  • 2.

    SiegelRLMillerKDJemalA. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin2017;67:730.

  • 3.

    SiegelRLMillerKDJemalA. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin2018;68:730.

  • 4.

    National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html. Accessed October 23 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    HumphreyLLHelfandMChanBKWoolfSH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med2002;137:347360.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    BartonMBElmoreJGFletcherSW. Breast symptoms among women enrolled in a health maintenance organization: frequency, evaluation, and outcome. Ann Intern Med1999;130:651657.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    NoroozianMHadjiiskiLRahnama-MoghadamS. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology2012;262:6168.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    ZuleyMLBandosAIGanottMA. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology2013;266:8995.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    WaldherrCCernyPAltermattHJ. 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 Roentgenol2013;200:226231.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Food and Drug Administration. Quality mammography standards; correction—FDA: final rule; correction. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration. Federal Register62:60613-60632 (1997).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR-BI-RADS®--5th Edition. ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Breast Imaging Atlas; BI-RADS. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    BassettLWinchesterDPCaplanRB. Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: a report of the Joint Task Force of the American College of Radiology, American College of Surgeons, and College of American Pathologists. CA Cancer J Clin1997;47:171190.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    FlobbeKBoschAMKesselsAG. The additional diagnostic value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Arch Intern Med2003;163:11941199.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    BergWABlumeJDCormackJB. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA2008;299:21512163.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    BuchbergerWDeKoekkoek-DollPSpringerP. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol1999;173:921927.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    CorsettiVHoussamiNFerrariA. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer2008;44:539544.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    KaplanSS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology2001;221:641649.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    KuhlCKSchradingSLeutnerCC. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2005;23:84698476.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    RenzDMBaltzerPATBottcherJ. Inflammatory breast carcinoma in magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison with locally advanced breast cancer. Acad Radiol2008;15:209221.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    BahlMBakerJAGreenupRAGhateSV. Evaluation of pathologic nipple discharge: What is the added diagnostic value of MRI?Ann Surg Oncol2015;22(Suppl 3):S435441.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    LubinaNSchedelbeckURothA. 3.0 Tesla breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with nipple discharge when mammography and ultrasound fail. Eur Radiol2015;25:12851293.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    MorroghMMorrisEALibermanL. MRI identifies otherwise occult disease in select patients with Paget disease of the nipple. J Am Coll Surg2008;206:316321.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    AbatiASimsirA. Breast fine needle aspiration biopsy: prevailing recommendations and contemporary practices. Clin Lab Med2005;25:631654 v.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    LevinePSimsirACangiarellaJ. Management issues in breast lesions diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration and percutaneous core breast biopsy. Am J Clin Pathol2006;125Suppl:S124134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    PijnappelRMvan den DonkMHollandR. Diagnostic accuracy for different strategies of image-guided breast intervention in cases of nonpalpable breast lesions. Br J Cancer2004;90:595600.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    PisanoEDFajardoLLCaudryDJ. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic diagnostic oncology group V. Radiology2001;219:785792.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    FishmanJEMilikowskiCRamsinghaniR. US-guided core-needle biopsy of the breast: how many specimens are necessary?Radiology2003;226:779782.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    YeowKMLoYFWangCS. Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy as an initial diagnostic test for palpable breast masses. J Vasc Interv Radiol2001;12:13131317.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    VerkooijenHM. Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: results of a multicenter prospective study with 95% surgical confirmation. Int J Cancer2002;99:853859.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    PandelidisSHeilandDJonesD. Accuracy of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsy of mammographic breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol2003;10:4347.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    KettritzURotterKSchreerI. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in 2874 patients: a multicenter study. Cancer2004;100:245251.

  • 32.

    Sigal-ZafraniBMullerKEl KhouryC. Vacuum-assisted large-core needle biopsy (VLNB) improves the management of patients with breast microcalcifications - analysis of 1009 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol2008;34:377381.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    BurbankFForcierN. Tissue marking clip for stereotactic breast biopsy: initial placement accuracy, long-term stability, and usefulness as a guide for wire localization. Radiology1997;205:407415.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    MandelblattJSCroninKde KoningH. Collaborative modeling of U.S. breast cancer screening strategies. AHRQ Publication No. 14–05201-EF-4. 2015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    EgyedZPentekZJarayB. Radial scar-significant diagnostic challenge. Pathol Oncol Res2008;14:123129.

  • 36.

    TeaM-KMGrimmCFink-RetterA. The validity of complex breast cysts after surgery. Am J Surg2009;197:199202.

  • 37.

    CangiarellaJGuthAAxelrodD. Is surgical excision necessary for the management of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed on core needle biopsy? A report of 38 cases and review of the literature. Arch Pathol Lab Med2008;132:979983.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    ElsheikhTMSilvermanJF. Follow-up surgical excision is indicated when breast core needle biopsies show atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ: a correlative study of 33 patients with review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol2005;29:534543.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    FrougeCTristantHGuinebretiereJM. Mammographic lesions suggestive of radial scars: microscopic findings in 40 cases. Radiology1995;195:623625.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    MargenthalerJADukeDMonseesBS. Correlation between core biopsy and excisional biopsy in breast high-risk lesions. Am J Surg2006;192:534537.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    ParkerSHBurbankFJackmanRJ. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology1994;193:359364.

  • 42.

    LinellFPinderSEEllisIO. Precursor lesions of breast carcinoma. The Breast1993;2:220223.

  • 43.

    MiddletonLPGrantSStephensT. Lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core needle biopsy: when should it be excised?Mod Pathol2003;16:120129.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    SohnVYArthursZMKimFSBrownTA. Lobular neoplasia: is surgical excision warranted?Am Surg2008;74:172177.

  • 45.

    BowmanKMunozAMahviDMBreslinTM. Lobular neoplasia diagnosed at core biopsy does not mandate surgical excision. J Surg Res2007;142:275280.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46.

    KopansDB. LCIS found at core needle biopsy may not need surgical excision. AJR Am J Roentgenol2008;191:W152; author reply W153.

  • 47.

    O'NeilMMadanRTawfikOW. Lobular carcinoma in situ/atypical lobular hyperplasia on breast needle biopsies: does it warrant surgical excisional biopsy? A study of 27 cases. Ann Diagn Pathol2010;14:251255.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48.

    RendiMHDintzisSMLehmanCD. Lobular in-situ neoplasia on breast core needle biopsy: imaging indication and pathologic extent can identify which patients require excisional biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol2012;19:914921.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    NagiCSO'DonnellJETismenetskyM. Lobular neoplasia on core needle biopsy does not require excision. Cancer2008;112:21522158.

  • 50.

    NakhlisFGilmoreLGelmanR. Incidence of adjacent synchronous invasive carcinoma and/or ductal carcinoma in-situ in patients with lobular neoplasia on core biopsy: results from a prospective multi-institutional registry (TBCRC 020). Ann Surg Oncol2016;23:722728.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51.

    KaiserJSHelvieMABlacklawRLRoubidouxMA. Palpable breast thickening: role of mammography and US in cancer detection. Radiology2002;223:839844.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52.

    LovingVADeMartiniWBEbyPR. Targeted ultrasound in women younger than 30 years with focal breast signs or symptoms: outcomes analyses and management implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol2010;195:14721477.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53.

    RobbinsJJeffriesDRoubidouxMHelvieM. Accuracy of diagnostic mammography and breast ultrasound during pregnancy and lactation. AJR Am J Roentgenol2011;196:716722.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54.

    LehmanCDLeeCILovingVA. Accuracy and value of breast ultrasound for primary imaging evaluation of symptomatic women 30-39 years of age. AJR Am J Roentgenol2012;199:11691177.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55.

    LehmanCDLeeAYLeeCI. Imaging management of palpable breast abnormalities. AJR Am J Roentgenol2014;203:11421153.

  • 56.

    HarveyJAMahoneyMCNewellMS. ACR appropriateness criteria palpable breast masses. J Am Coll Radiol2016;13:e31e42.

  • 57.

    SooMSRosenELBakerJA. Negative predictive value of sonography with mammography in patients with palpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol2001;177:11671170.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 58.

    ShettyMKShahYP. Prospective evaluation of the value of negative sonographic and mammographic findings in patients with palpable abnormalities of the breast. J Ultrasound Med2002;21:12111216; quiz 1217–1219.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59.

    MoyLSlanetzPJMooreR. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology2002;225:176181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 60.

    LeungSEBen-NachumIKorneckiA. New palpable breast lump with recent negative mammogram: is repeat mammography necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol2016;207:200204.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 61.

    StavrosATThickmanDRappCL. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology1995;196:123134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 62.

    GrafOHelbichTHFuchsjaegerMH. Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted?Radiology2004;233:850856.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 63.

    HarveyJANicholsonBTLorussoAP. Short-term follow-up of palpable breast lesions with benign imaging features: evaluation of 375 lesions in 320 women. AJR Am J Roentgenol2009;193:17231730.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 64.

    ShinJHHanBKKoEY. Probably benign breast masses diagnosed by sonography: is there a difference in the cancer rate according to palpability?AJR Am J Roentgenol2009;192:W187191.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 65.

    PattersonSKNealCHJeffriesDO. Outcomes of solid palpable masses assessed as BI-RADS 3 or 4A: a retrospective review. Breast Cancer Res Treat2014;147:311316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 66.

    BooiRCCarsonPLO'DonnellM. Characterization of cysts using differential correlation coefficient values from two dimensional breast elastography: preliminary study. Ultrasound Med Biol2008;34:1221.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 67.

    AshbeckELRosenbergRDStauberPMKeyCR. Benign breast biopsy diagnosis and subsequent risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2007;16:467472.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 68.

    DalyCPBaileyJEKleinKAHelvieMA. Complicated breast cysts on sonography: is aspiration necessary to exclude malignancy? Acad Radiol2008;15:610617.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 69.

    HuffJG. The sonographic findings and differing clinical implications of simple, complicated, and complex breast cysts. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2009;7:11011104; quiz 1105.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 70.

    VentaLAKimJPPelloskiCEMorrowM. Management of complex breast cysts. AJR Am J Roentgenol1999;173:13311336.

  • 71.

    DoshiDJMarchDECrisiGMCoughlinBF. Complex cystic breast masses: diagnostic approach and imaging-pathologic correlation. Radiographics2007;27(Suppl 1):5364.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 72.

    HussainANPolicarpioCVincentMT. Evaluating nipple discharge. Obstet Gynecol Surv2006;61:278283.

  • 73.

    JainACrawfordSLarkinA. Management of nipple discharge: technology chasing application. Breast J2010;16:451452.

  • 74.

    MarkopoulosCMantasDKouskosE. Surgical management of nipple discharge. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol2006;27:275278.

  • 75.

    FuchsjagerMHPhilippMOLoeweCHelbichTH. [Diagnostic management of nipple discharge]. Wien Klin Wochenschr2003;115(Suppl 2):3339.

  • 76.

    JardinesL. Management of nipple discharge. Am Surg1996;62:119122.

  • 77.

    OhuchiNFurutaAMoriS. Management of ductal carcinoma in situ with nipple discharge: intraductal spreading of carcinoma is an unfavorable pathologic factor for breast-conserving surgery. Cancer1994;74:12941302.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 78.

    GulayHBoraSKilicturgayS. Management of nipple discharge. J Am Coll Surg1994;178:471474.

  • 79.

    LeisHPJr.Management of nipple discharge. World J Surg1989;13:736742.

  • 80.

    SabelMSHelvieMABreslinT. Is duct excision still necessary for all cases of suspicious nipple discharge?Breast J2012;18:157162.

  • 81.

    AshfaqASeniorDPockajBA. Validation study of a modern treatment algorithm for nipple discharge. Am J Surg2014;208:222227.

  • 82.

    TokudaYKuriyamaKNakamotoA. Evaluation of suspicious nipple discharge by magnetic resonance mammography based on breast imaging reporting and data system magnetic resonance imaging descriptors. J Comput Assist Tomogr2009;33:5862. 10.1097/RCT.1090b1013e3181671ad3181672.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 83.

    BallesioLMaggiCSavelliS. Role of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with unilateral nipple discharge: preliminary study. Radiol Med2008;113:249264.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 84.

    FoulkesREHeardGBoyceT. Duct excision is still necessary to rule out breast cancer in patients presenting with spontaneous bloodstained nipple discharge. Int J Breast Cancer2011;2011:495315.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 85.

    DawoodSCristofanilliM. What progress have we made in managing inflammatory breast cancer?Oncology (Williston Park)2007;21:673679.

  • 86.

    HaagensenC. Inflammatory carcinoma. In: Diseases of the Breast. 3rd ed.Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1986.

  • 87.

    SakorafasGHBlanchardDKSarrMGFarleyDR. Paget's disease of the breast: a clinical perspective. Langenbecks Arch Surg2001;386:444450.

  • 88.

    SakorafasGHBlanchardKSarrMGFarleyDR. Paget's disease of the breast. Cancer Treat Rev2001;27:918.

  • 89.

    IkedaDMHelvieMAFrankTS. Paget disease of the nipple: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology1993;189:8994.

  • 90.

    SmithRLPruthiSFitzpatrickLA. Evaluation and management of breast pain. Mayo Clin Proc2004;79:353372.

  • 91.

    NoroozianMSteinLFGaetke-UdagerKHelvieMA. Long-term clinical outcomes in women with breast pain in the absence of additional clinical findings: mammography remains indicated. Breast Cancer Res Treat2015;149:417424.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 92.

    BartonMBHarrisRFletcherSW. The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: should it be done? How?JAMA1999;282:12701280.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 93.

    BarrosACMottolaJRuizCA. Reassurance in the treatment of mastalgia. Breast J1999;5:162165.

  • 94.

    WalshRKornguthPJSooMS. Axillary lymph nodes: mammographic, pathologic, and clinical correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol1997;168:3338.

  • 95.

    ShipchandlerTZLorenzRRMcMahonJTubbsR. Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy due to silicone breast implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2007;133:830832.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 96.

    de AndradeJMMaranaHRSarmento FilhoJM. Differential diagnosis of axillary masses. Tumori1996;82:596599.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 3 3 0
Full Text Views 5911 5911 631
PDF Downloads 1592 1592 180
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0