Differential Diagnosis of Breast Mass: A Comprehensive Guide for Healthcare Professionals

A palpable breast mass is a common clinical finding that necessitates thorough evaluation due to its association with a wide range of conditions, from benign lesions to malignant tumors. While most breast masses are benign, a structured and age-appropriate diagnostic approach is crucial to differentiate benign conditions from breast cancer and ensure timely and appropriate management. This article provides an in-depth guide to the Differential Diagnosis Of Breast Masses, focusing on clinical evaluation, imaging modalities, and management strategies tailored to different age groups. This resource aims to enhance healthcare professionals’ competence in evaluating and managing patients presenting with a palpable breast mass, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Objectives:

• Recognize the clinical characteristics of a suspicious palpable breast mass that warrant further investigation.
• Differentiate age-specific recommendations for the initial evaluation of patients with a new palpable breast mass.
• Implement evidence-based management strategies for patients following the initial evaluation of a breast mass.
• Utilize interprofessional team approaches to optimize care coordination and improve outcomes for patients with breast masses.

Introduction

Palpable breast masses are a frequent concern in outpatient settings, accounting for approximately 3% of primary care visits for women’s health issues.[1] Although benign breast conditions are the most common cause of these masses, the potential for malignancy necessitates a systematic evaluation in every patient presenting with a palpable breast mass.[2] It’s important to note that breast masses are not exclusive to women; they can also occur in men and children, underscoring the need for a broad differential diagnosis and age-appropriate assessment strategies. Male breast cancer, though less common, requires a high index of suspicion to ensure prompt diagnosis and intervention.[3, 4]

The differential diagnosis of a breast mass is extensive, encompassing benign conditions, such as cysts and fibroadenomas, and malignant entities, including various types of breast cancer. A well-defined evaluation process is essential to effectively assess these lesions, minimizing unnecessary procedures while ensuring no malignancy is missed. Typically, the evaluation starts with a detailed patient history and clinical breast examination (CBE), followed by imaging in most cases.[5] The choice of initial imaging modality is often guided by the patient’s age, with mammography generally preferred for women over 40 and ultrasound for younger women. Further management decisions depend on the patient’s age, clinical findings, and imaging results. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the diagnostic pathway for palpable breast masses is vital for clinicians to provide timely and accurate patient care.

Etiology

Breast Anatomy

To understand the diverse etiologies of breast masses, a basic understanding of breast anatomy is essential. The breast, or mammary gland, is a specialized skin appendage, classified as an apocrine sweat gland. It is composed of a complex interplay of fibrous, glandular, and adipose tissues. Each breast typically contains 15 to 20 lobes, each independently draining via lactiferous ducts that converge towards the nipple in the subareolar region. The lobes are supported by a framework of fibrous stroma and are embedded within fatty stroma. Lymphatic drainage of the breast is critical in understanding cancer spread and primarily occurs through the axillary lymph nodes, involving pectoral, subscapular, and internal mammary nodes.[6] (See Image. Breast Sagittal View).

While breast tissue is present in both children and males, its development is significantly influenced by hormonal changes, particularly in females during reproductive years. Puberty-related hormonal surges drive breast development in females. Conversely, post-menopausal hormonal changes lead to breast tissue involution, with glandular tissue atrophy due to reduced estrogen levels and its replacement by fatty tissue. It’s important to remember that breast tissues and many breast pathologies are highly sensitive to hormonal fluctuations.[6]

Breast Mass Etiologies

The differential diagnosis of a palpable breast mass is broad and varies significantly depending on the patient’s age, hormonal status, and clinical presentation. (Refer to the Differential Diagnoses section for a detailed list). The causes of breast masses are diverse, ranging from benign, self-limiting conditions to life-threatening malignancies.

In women under 25 years of age, fibroadenomas are the most common cause of breast masses. Other prevalent benign conditions in this age group include cysts, giant juvenile fibroadenomas, hamartomas, fat necrosis, and inflammatory breast conditions like breast abscesses. Although rare, breast carcinoma should still be considered, even in younger women. For women aged 25 and older, fibroadenomas and benign cysts remain common, but the probability of malignancy increases with age.[7, 8] This age-related increase in cancer risk necessitates a more vigilant approach to diagnosis in older women.

Benign and Malignant Breast Mass Risk Factors

While most palpable breast masses are benign, it’s crucial to recognize the risk factors that increase the likelihood of breast malignancy.[2] Identifying these risk factors helps guide the differential diagnosis and risk stratification.

The most significant risk factor for breast cancer is prolonged exposure to estrogens. Clinicians should routinely inquire about lifetime estrogen exposure in all patients presenting with a new breast mass. Factors that increase estrogen exposure include early menarche, late first pregnancy, nulliparity, use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and late menopause. Conversely, breastfeeding has been shown to have a protective effect.[9] In male patients, relevant history includes prior hormonal treatments for prostate cancer, use of medications like finasteride or testosterone, history of orchitis/epididymitis, or a diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome.[10] Lifestyle factors such as excessive alcohol intake and obesity are also thought to elevate endogenous estrogen levels.[11] For a more comprehensive understanding of breast cancer risk factors, refer to StatPearls’ companion resource, “Breast Cancer.”

Risk factors for benign breast disorders are less clearly defined. However, recent research suggests that age, family history, and hormonal factors play a role in the development of benign breast lesions, similar to their influence on breast malignancy. A family history of breast cancer significantly elevates the risk for various benign breast conditions.[12]

Women of reproductive age with regular menstrual cycles, older age at first childbirth, extended breastfeeding duration, or prolonged use of oral contraceptives (≥8 years) appear to have a higher risk of fibroadenomas. Postmenopausal women are at increased risk for epithelial proliferation with atypia.[12] Hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women also increases the risk of epithelial proliferation with atypia, fibrocystic changes, breast cysts, and fibroadenomas. Nulliparity is associated with an increased risk of breast cysts compared to women with multiple pregnancies (three or more children) but a decreased risk compared to women with only one child. Interestingly, obesity did not appear to increase the risk of benign breast disorders in one study and, in some cases, was associated with a reduced risk.[12]

Epidemiology

Breast cancer remains the most common malignancy among women worldwide.[13] A palpable breast mass is the most frequent presenting symptom of breast cancer. However, benign breast disease is a significantly more common cause of breast symptoms, including palpable masses and breast pain, accounting for the vast majority of breast-related complaints in primary care settings.[1, 14]

The incidence of benign breast conditions varies widely based on age and the specific type of lesion. Fibroadenomas are particularly prevalent, accounting for 95% of palpable breast masses in adolescent girls and 12% in menopausal women.[7, 8] A recent study examining the incidence of benign breast diseases found that fibroadenomas, epithelial proliferation, and fibrocystic changes are most common in women around the age of 25, with incidence rates of 45, 32, and 42 per 100,000 person-years, respectively. These rates increase to 81, 55, and 140 per 100,000 person-years by age 40 before declining after age 55.[12] This epidemiological data highlights the age-related variation in the differential diagnosis of breast masses.

Pathophysiology

The pathophysiology of palpable breast masses is as diverse as their etiologies. Each condition within the differential diagnosis has its distinct underlying pathological mechanisms. For detailed information on the pathophysiology of specific breast disorders, please refer to StatPearls’ companion resources: “Breast Cancer,” “Breast Cyst,” “Breast Fibroadenoma,” “Fibrocystic Breast Disease,” and “Breast Fat Necrosis.” Understanding the specific pathophysiology of each entity aids in accurate differential diagnosis and targeted management.

History and Physical Examination

The initial clinical assessment of a palpable breast mass relies heavily on a detailed patient history, focusing on the characteristics of the mass, associated symptoms, breast cancer risk factors, and a thorough clinical breast examination (CBE).[8, 15] The CBE is a cornerstone of the triple assessment approach used to evaluate breast lesions for potential malignancy.[16]

Clinical History

Obtaining a comprehensive clinical history is paramount in characterizing a breast mass. Key aspects to explore include the onset and duration of the mass, any changes in size over time, presence of pain or tenderness, nipple discharge, and skin changes (such as ulceration, eczema-like changes, or skin retraction).[7, 8] These historical features can provide valuable clues towards the differential diagnosis. For example, a breast lump that is acutely tender is more suggestive of an abscess or hematoma, possibly secondary to trauma. While breast cancer is typically painless, pain does not rule out malignancy. A history of recent pregnancy or breastfeeding raises the likelihood of lactation-associated conditions like mastitis or galactocele.[17] Nipple changes or spontaneous nipple discharge warrant careful attention as they can be associated with certain breast tumors, including intraductal papillomas and, less commonly, malignancy.[9, 18] Inquiring about systemic symptoms, such as unexplained weight loss, dyspnea, or bone pain, is also important as these may indicate metastatic disease in cases of malignancy.[19]

Determining the precise duration of a breast mass can be challenging. Patients who do not routinely perform breast self-exams may not detect a mass until it has grown considerably. Furthermore, many breast lumps are initially identified during routine screening mammography, making the patient’s awareness of the mass onset unreliable for determining acuity. It is important to ascertain if the mass developed after trauma or in association with other symptoms and to assess if the patient perceives it as rapidly growing or changing.

Breast Cancer Risk Factors

Family history is a critical risk factor for breast cancer. A detailed family history should be obtained, including information about first- and second-degree relatives diagnosed with breast cancer or other cancers, particularly at a young age. Risk assessment tools, such as the Tyrer-Cuzick model, can be valuable in generating a more precise risk profile.[7, 20] Furthermore, a thorough review of the patient’s medical history and medications is essential for comprehensive risk assessment. As previously mentioned, estrogen exposure is a primary risk factor, so clinicians should inquire about factors contributing to lifetime estrogen exposure, including oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy, and reproductive history. Lifestyle factors such as smoking and alcohol consumption should also be documented.[7, 12]

Clinical Breast Examination

The clinical breast examination is the first essential component of the triple assessment for breast masses. Both breasts and axillae should be meticulously examined by a trained clinician. A general physical examination should also be performed as indicated by the patient’s history. While advanced imaging modalities like mammography and ultrasound are invaluable, the physical examination findings are crucial for effective diagnosis and management of breast disease.[21] Studies have consistently demonstrated that optimal diagnostic accuracy is achieved by integrating all three components of the triple assessment – clinical examination, imaging, and tissue sampling when indicated.[16, 21]

A chaperone is often present during CBE to ensure patient comfort and privacy. The patient should be appropriately undressed from the waist up, and the examination is typically performed with the patient in both supine and seated positions.[7, 8] The examination begins with visual inspection of both breasts and axillae, looking for skin changes (redness, edema, peau d’orange), nipple discharge, visible masses, asymmetry between breasts, and any signs of skin or nipple retraction. Skin retraction or tethering to underlying structures can be accentuated by asking the patient to place their hands on their hips and then raise their arms overhead.[8, 22] Palpation is best performed with the patient lying supine at approximately 30 degrees, with the ipsilateral arm raised above their head.

Systematic palpation of each breast is essential, typically using a four-quadrant approach (upper outer, upper inner, lower outer, and lower inner quadrants), followed by palpation of the areola and axillary tail. Special attention should be paid to the inframammary fold and the axillary tail, where masses can be easily missed. The unaffected breast should be examined first to establish a baseline for normal tissue consistency. The upper outer quadrant is the most common location for breast masses due to the greater volume of breast tissue in this area. The nipple-areola complex should also be carefully palpated.[7]

When a palpable breast mass is identified, it should be meticulously characterized in terms of location (quadrant or clock position), size (in centimeters), shape (round, oval, irregular), tenderness, consistency (soft, firm, hard), mobility (mobile or fixed to underlying tissues), texture (smooth, nodular, cystic), and pulsatility. If nipple discharge is reported but not immediately visible, the patient can be asked to gently express the nipple to elicit discharge for observation.[8, 23] Following breast palpation, axillary and supraclavicular lymph node basins must always be examined for lymphadenopathy. Any enlarged, tender, or firm lymph nodes should be documented, noting their number, size, consistency, and mobility. During axillary examination, supporting the patient’s arm can help relax the pectoral muscles, improving access to the axillary nodes.[24]

Evaluation

Breast Imaging Classification: BI-RADS

Breast imaging findings are standardized using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), developed by the American College of Radiology. BI-RADS categorizes imaging findings based on the probability of malignancy and provides corresponding management recommendations. This standardized system ensures clear communication among radiologists and clinicians and guides appropriate patient care. BI-RADS categories range from 0 (incomplete assessment) to 6 (known malignancy).[25]

The BI-RADS system provides specific criteria for classifying masses based on the imaging modality. On mammography, a mass is defined as a lesion visible in two different projections with convex outer borders and greater density centrally than peripherally.[25, 26] On ultrasound, a mass must be visualized in two orthogonal planes. Mass characteristics are then described based on shape (round, oval, irregular), margins (circumscribed, microlobulated, indistinct, spiculated, or obscured), and density (hypoechoic, isoechoic, hyperechoic relative to surrounding tissue, or complex cystic and solid). Circumscribed margins are more suggestive of benignity, while irregular shapes and spiculated or indistinct margins are more concerning for malignancy.[25, 27]

Table

Table. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Radiological Assessment

The primary radiological modalities for breast imaging in the evaluation of palpable breast masses are mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (see Image. Superficial Vein With an Area of Intraluminal Thrombus, Ultrasound). Age-specific guidelines help optimize the use of these modalities. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria provide recommendations for evaluating new palpable breast masses based on patient age:

• Women under 30: Ultrasound is the preferred initial imaging modality. Mammography is generally not recommended as the first-line imaging test in this age group due to higher breast density, which reduces mammographic sensitivity and increases radiation exposure risk without significant benefit in detecting malignancy in younger women.[29]
• Women 30-39: Both diagnostic mammography and ultrasound are considered appropriate initial imaging modalities. The choice may depend on clinical factors and individual patient risk.
• Women 40 and older: Diagnostic mammography is typically the preferred initial imaging modality. Ultrasound is often used as a supplemental tool to further evaluate findings identified on mammography or to assess palpable masses in dense breasts.

MRI is generally not recommended as a routine initial imaging modality for evaluating palpable breast masses due to its higher cost, higher false-positive rate, and lower specificity compared to mammography and ultrasound. However, MRI may be valuable in specific clinical scenarios, such as differentiating scar tissue from recurrent tumor in post-lumpectomy patients, evaluating the extent of disease in known breast cancer, or screening women at high risk of breast cancer (e.g., those with known BRCA mutations).[5]

Pathology Analysis

The third component of the triple assessment is pathological diagnosis, which involves tissue sampling through either fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) or core needle biopsy (CNB).[16] Cytology from FNAB allows for examination of individual cells, while histology from CNB provides architectural information about the tissue. Invasive procedures are associated with potential risks and should be performed when clinical and/or imaging findings raise suspicion for malignancy. The choice between FNAB and CNB depends on factors like clinician expertise, available resources, and lesion characteristics. However, CNB is generally preferred over FNAB due to its lower rate of insufficient tissue samples and higher sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing breast cancer.[8, 30] When breast cancer is diagnosed by FNAB, CNB confirmation with immunohistochemical evaluation is typically required before initiating definitive treatment.[7] For further details on these procedures, refer to StatPearls’ companion resources, “Fine Needle Aspiration of Breast Masses” and “Stereotactic and Needle Breast Biopsy.”

Excisional biopsy, once the gold standard for diagnosing palpable breast masses and suspicious nonpalpable lesions, is now primarily reserved for specific situations because CNB provides accurate histologic diagnosis with less tissue disruption. Current indications for excisional biopsy include:

• Discordance between imaging and CNB results (e.g., suspicious imaging findings with benign CNB result)
• Nondiagnostic CNB specimens (insufficient tissue for diagnosis)
• Lesions technically inaccessible to CNB due to location or patient anatomy
• Findings of atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) on CNB, where complete excision is often recommended to rule out associated invasive carcinoma.[8]

Treatment / Management

Initial management recommendations for a new palpable breast mass are guided by the BI-RADS category assigned based on imaging findings and the patient’s age:

• BI-RADS 1 (Negative): Routine screening and follow-up per age-based guidelines.
• BI-RADS 2 (Benign): Routine screening and follow-up. For symptomatic BI-RADS 2 lesions, management may include reassurance and observation.
• BI-RADS 3 (Probably Benign): Short-interval follow-up imaging (diagnostic mammography or ultrasound) is recommended, typically at 6, 12, and 24 months. Biopsy may be considered if there is high clinical suspicion or patient anxiety. If the lesion remains stable over the follow-up period, it can be downgraded to BI-RADS 2.
• BI-RADS 4 (Suspicious): Biopsy is recommended. BI-RADS 4 is further subdivided into 4A (low suspicion), 4B (intermediate suspicion), and 4C (moderate suspicion) to guide the urgency of biopsy and clinical decision-making.
• BI-RADS 5 (Highly Suggestive of Malignancy): Biopsy is highly recommended. Management should proceed based on confirmed diagnosis.
• BI-RADS 6 (Known Malignancy): Management is directed by the known cancer diagnosis, often involving surgical consultation and multidisciplinary cancer care.

Management recommendations for BI-RADS categories 2 through 5 are generally similar across all age groups. BI-RADS 2 findings typically require routine follow-up only if asymptomatic. BI-RADS 3 lesions with low clinical suspicion can be monitored with CBE and diagnostic mammogram or ultrasound every 6 to 12 months for 1 to 2 years. However, biopsy is recommended if clinical suspicion is high or if the lesion shows interval growth or change on follow-up imaging. BI-RADS 4 or 5 findings on initial or follow-up imaging necessitate tissue biopsy.

Ultimately, the definitive treatment of a breast mass depends on the specific diagnosis established through appropriate follow-up and histological assessment. Management often requires an interprofessional approach, involving specialists from oncology, radiology, pathology, surgery, specialist nursing, anesthesia, palliative care, social work, and psychology, as indicated by the individual patient’s needs and diagnosis.[8, 28]

For detailed information on the specific management of various breast disorders, please consult StatPearls’ companion resources: “Breast Cancer,” “Breast Cyst,” “Breast Fibroadenoma,” “Fibrocystic Breast Disease,” “Phyllodes Tumor of the Breast,” “Male Breast Cancer,” “Inflammatory Breast Cancer,” “Breast Abscess,” and “Breast Fat Necrosis.”

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis of a palpable breast mass is broad and varies depending on the patient’s age, gender, and clinical presentation. In women under 25, benign conditions are the most common causes, including fibroadenomas, giant juvenile fibroadenomas, breast cysts, hamartomas, fat necrosis, and inflammatory conditions such as breast abscesses. In women 25 and older, while benign conditions remain common, the risk of underlying malignancy significantly increases with age.[7, 8] It is crucial to consider the full spectrum of potential diagnoses when evaluating a breast mass.

For further detailed information on specific breast disorders, refer to StatPearls’ companion resources: “Breast Cancer,” “Breast Cyst,” “Breast Fibroadenoma,” “Fibrocystic Breast Disease,” “Breast Abscess,” and “Breast Fat Necrosis.”

Key differential diagnoses to consider in patients presenting with a palpable breast mass include:

• Breast cyst: Fluid-filled sacs within the breast tissue, common in premenopausal women.
• Breast abscess: Localized collection of pus within the breast, often associated with infection, particularly in lactating women.
• Breast carcinoma: Malignant tumors of the breast tissue, encompassing various subtypes like ductal carcinoma, lobular carcinoma, and inflammatory breast cancer.
• Fibrocystic changes: Benign breast condition characterized by lumpy or rope-like texture, often with cyclic pain and tenderness.
• Fibroadenomas: Benign solid breast tumors composed of glandular and stromal tissue, common in young women.
• Lactating adenoma: Benign breast tumor that occurs during pregnancy or lactation.
• Phlegmon: Diffuse inflammation of breast tissue, often infectious.
• Prominent lactiferous sinus: Normal dilated milk duct that may feel like a mass upon palpation.
• Traumatic fat necrosis: Benign condition resulting from injury to breast tissue, leading to fat cell damage and lump formation.
• Hematoma: Collection of blood within the breast tissue, typically after trauma or surgery.
• Hamartoma (Fibroadenolipoma): Benign tumor-like malformation composed of fat, fibrous, and glandular tissue. [8, 17]

In male patients presenting with breast masses, a high index of suspicion for malignancy is essential to rule out breast cancer promptly.[4] Imaging male breasts typically involves ultrasound, as mammography is less effective in evaluating the dense, gynecomastic male breast tissue. In men, masses located centrally, behind the nipple, are frequently due to gynecomastia – benign enlargement of male breast tissue. Gynecomastia can be physiological (neonatal, pubertal, senescent) or pathological, associated with hormonal imbalances, medications (e.g., spironolactone, calcium channel blockers), liver failure, chromosomal disorders (e.g., Klinefelter syndrome), and paraneoplastic syndromes.[31, 32]

Prognosis

The prognosis for a patient with a palpable breast mass is primarily determined by the underlying etiology – whether it is benign or malignant. The vast majority of breast masses are benign and carry an excellent prognosis with no long-term health consequences. However, the prognosis of breast carcinoma is significantly influenced by the stage at diagnosis. Early-stage breast cancers (stage 0 and stage I) have a 5-year survival rate approaching 100%. For stage II and stage III breast cancer, the 5-year survival rates are approximately 93% and 72%, respectively. Stage IV breast cancer, indicating distant metastasis, has a significantly poorer prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate of around 22%.[33] Early detection and appropriate treatment are crucial in improving the prognosis for breast cancer patients.

Complications

The primary complications associated with the evaluation of palpable breast masses arise from biopsy procedures. Both fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and core needle biopsy (CNB) carry potential risks, although these are generally low. Common complications include bleeding at the biopsy site, bruising, mild pain or discomfort, infection, patient anxiety, hematoma formation, and altered breast sensation. Core needle biopsy, due to the larger tissue sample obtained, may have a slightly higher risk of bleeding and hematoma compared to FNA.[34] Anesthesia-related risks are minimal with local anesthesia, which is typically used for these procedures.

Deterrence and Patient Education

Deterrence and patient education are vital in the comprehensive management of palpable breast masses. Empowering patients with knowledge about breast health, normal breast anatomy, and the importance of prompt evaluation of any breast changes is crucial. Patients should be educated on performing regular breast self-exams and encouraged to report any new lumps, nipple discharge, skin changes, or rapid growth of existing masses without delay. Raising awareness of breast cancer risk factors, including family history and lifestyle influences, fosters vigilance and promotes early detection. Clinicians should address common misconceptions about breast masses and alleviate patient anxieties that might deter them from seeking timely medical care.

Deterrence efforts should focus on promoting preventive strategies and ensuring accessible, patient-centered care through an interprofessional approach. Clinicians must emphasize the importance of routine breast cancer screenings according to established guidelines and ensure appropriate follow-up for any suspicious findings. For patients at higher risk of malignancy, such as those with atypical imaging or biopsy results, education about surveillance options, genetic counseling, and lifestyle modifications is essential. Involving interprofessional teams ensures patients receive consistent, comprehensive information and support, improving adherence to care plans. By building trust, enhancing health literacy, and maintaining open communication, healthcare teams can improve early detection rates, optimize patient outcomes, and reduce the overall burden of breast disease.

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

Effective management of breast masses necessitates a collaborative, interprofessional healthcare team approach due to the complexity of differential diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment. Seamless collaboration between primary care clinicians, specialists (radiologists, surgeons, oncologists, pathologists), and subspecialists is essential for accurate diagnosis and appropriate management. Clear communication pathways and well-defined roles among team members are critical for coordinating care efficiently, minimizing delays, and preventing miscommunication. Clinics that employ a triple assessment model exemplify effective interprofessional teamwork, bringing together physicians, specialist nurses, clinical pathologists, radiographers, sonographers, and radiologists to leverage their diverse expertise. This collaborative environment fosters consensus, facilitates accurate and timely diagnoses, and ensures patient-centered care.

Interprofessional collaboration extends beyond diagnosis to encompass treatment and follow-up care. Depending on the etiology of the breast mass, the team may expand to include surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, immunologists, genetic counselors, and specialized oncology nurses who guide patients throughout their care journey. Each team member contributes unique expertise, from performing diagnostic imaging and biopsies to providing patient education, treatment, and psychosocial support. Maintaining open communication channels, conducting regular team meetings, and leveraging collective knowledge ensures comprehensive patient care that addresses not only the medical aspects of breast mass management but also the emotional and psychological needs of patients and their families. This coordinated, patient-centered approach optimizes patient outcomes, enhances patient safety, and ensures high-quality, holistic care.

Review Questions

Figure

Image Alt Text: Ultrasound image showing superficial vein thrombosis in a palpable breast mass. Gray-scale ultrasound demonstrates a superficial vein with intraluminal thrombus, relevant for differential diagnosis of palpable breast masses. Contributed by H Barazi.

Superficial Vein With an Area of Intraluminal Thrombus, Ultrasound. Gray-scale images of the patient’s area of palpable concern in the right breast demonstrate a superficial vein with an area of intraluminal thrombus. Contributed by H Barazi, (more…)

Figure

Image Alt Text: Sagittal view of breast anatomy illustrating lobes, ducts, fatty tissue, and chest wall, important for understanding breast mass development. Breast Sagittal View showing lobules, nipple, areola, milk duct, fatty tissue, skin, and pectoralis muscle. PJ Lynch and Morgoth666, Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Breast Sagittal View. This illustration shows the chest wall, pectoralis, lobules, nipple, areola, milk duct, fatty tissue, and skin. PJ Lynch and Morgoth666, Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Figure

Image Alt Text: Mammogram of inflammatory breast cancer showing skin thickening and increased breast density, a key differential in palpable breast masses. Mammographic view of inflammatory breast cancer with skin thickening, increased density, and malignant calcifications. Contributed by H Barazi.

Breast Mammogram. A mammographic view of the left breast demonstrates skin thickening, diffusely increased breast density, and malignant-type calcifications in this patient with biopsy-proven inflammatory breast cancer. Contributed by H Barazi, (more…)

References

1.Salzman B, Collins E, Hersh L. Common Breast Problems. Am Fam Physician. 2019 Apr 15;99(8):505-514. [PubMed: 30990294]

2.Brown AL, Phillips J, Slanetz PJ, Fein-Zachary V, Venkataraman S, Dialani V, Mehta TS. Clinical Value of Mammography in the Evaluation of Palpable Breast Lumps in Women 30 Years Old and Older. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Oct;209(4):935-942. [PubMed: 28777649]

3.Kamal MZ, Banu NR, Alam MM, Das UK, Karmoker RK. Evaluation of Breast Lump – Comparison between True-cut Needle Biopsy and FNAC in MMCH: A Study of 100 Cases. Mymensingh Med J. 2020 Jan;29(1):48-54. [PubMed: 31915335]

4.Yuan WH, Li AF, Chou YH, Hsu HC, Chen YY. Clinical and ultrasonographic features of male breast tumors: A retrospective analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194651. [PMC free article: PMC5860767] [PubMed: 29558507]

5.Expert Panel on Breast Imaging: Moy L, Heller SL, Bailey L, D’Orsi C, DiFlorio RM, Green ED, Holbrook AI, Lee SJ, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB, Sepulveda KA, Slanetz PJ, Trikha S, Yepes MM, Newell MS. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Palpable Breast Masses. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 May;14(5S):S203-S224. [PubMed: 28473077]

6.Khan YS, Fakoya AO, Sajjad H. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Dec 10, 2023. Anatomy, Thorax, Mammary Gland. [PubMed: 31613446]

7.Malherbe F, Nel D, Molabe H, Cairncross L, Roodt L. Palpable breast lumps: An age-based approach to evaluation and diagnosis. S Afr Fam Pract (2004). 2022 Sep 23;64(1):e1-e5. [PMC free article: PMC9575372] [PubMed: 36226953]

8.Practice Bulletin No. 164: Diagnosis and Management of Benign Breast Disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;127(6):e141-e156. [PubMed: 27214189]

9.Akram M, Iqbal M, Daniyal M, Khan AU. Awareness and current knowledge of breast cancer. Biol Res. 2017 Oct 02;50(1):33. [PMC free article: PMC5625777] [PubMed: 28969709]

10.Yalaza M, İnan A, Bozer M. Male Breast Cancer. J Breast Health. 2016 Jan;12(1):1-8. [PMC free article: PMC5351429] [PubMed: 28331724]

11.Travis RC, Key TJ. Oestrogen exposure and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5(5):239-47. [PMC free article: PMC314432] [PubMed: 12927032]

12.Johansson A, Christakou AE, Iftimi A, Eriksson M, Tapia J, Skoog L, Benz CC, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Hall P, Czene K, Lindström LS. Characterization of Benign Breast Diseases and Association With Age, Hormonal Factors, and Family History of Breast Cancer Among Women in Sweden. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jun 01;4(6):e2114716. [PMC free article: PMC8233703] [PubMed: 34170304]

13.Ahmad A. Breast Cancer Statistics: Recent Trends. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1152:1-7. [PubMed: 31456176]

14.Stachs A, Stubert J, Reimer T, Hartmann S. Benign Breast Disease in Women. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2019 Aug 09;116(33-34):565-574. [PMC free article: PMC6794703] [PubMed: 31554551]

15.Perry MC. Breast Lump. In: Walker HK, Hall WD, Hurst JW, editors. Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations. 3rd ed. Butterworths; Boston: 1990. [PubMed: 21250122]

16.Karim MO, Khan KA, Khan AJ, Javed A, Fazid S, Aslam MI. Triple Assessment of Breast Lump: Should We Perform Core Biopsy for Every Patient? Cureus. 2020 Mar 30;12(3):e7479. [PMC free article: PMC7188022] [PubMed: 32351857]

17.Mitchell KB, Johnson HM, Eglash A., Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine. ABM Clinical Protocol #30: Breast Masses, Breast Complaints, and Diagnostic Breast Imaging in the Lactating Woman. Breastfeed Med. 2019 May;14(4):208-214. [PubMed: 30892931]

18.Duijm LE, Guit GL, Hendriks JH, Zaat JO, Mali WP. Value of breast imaging in women with painful breasts: observational follow up study. BMJ. 1998 Nov 28;317(7171):1492-5. [PMC free article: PMC28731] [PubMed: 9831579]

19.Tahara RK, Brewer TM, Theriault RL, Ueno NT. Bone Metastasis of Breast Cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1152:105-129. [PubMed: 31456182]

20.Brewer HR, Jones ME, Schoemaker MJ, Ashworth A, Swerdlow AJ. Family history and risk of breast cancer: an analysis accounting for family structure. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Aug;165(1):193-200. [PMC free article: PMC5511313] [PubMed: 28578505]

21.Provencher L, Hogue JC, Desbiens C, Poirier B, Poirier E, Boudreau D, Joyal M, Diorio C, Duchesne N, Chiquette J. Is clinical breast examination important for breast cancer detection? Curr Oncol. 2016 Aug;23(4):e332-9. [PMC free article: PMC4974039] [PubMed: 27536182]

22.Henderson JA, Duffee D, Ferguson T. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Jan 16, 2023. Breast Examination Techniques. [PubMed: 29083747]

23.Barry M. Nipple Discharge. In: Walker HK, Hall WD, Hurst JW, editors. Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations. 3rd ed. Butterworths; Boston: 1990. [PubMed: 21250127]

24.Sultania M, Kataria K, Srivastava A, Misra MC, Parshad R, Dhar A, Hari S, Thulkar S. Validation of Different Techniques in Physical Examination of Breast. Indian J Surg. 2017 Jun;79(3):219-225. [PMC free article: PMC5473793] [PubMed: 28659675]

25.Eghtedari M, Chong A, Rakow-Penner R, Ojeda-Fournier H. Current Status and Future of BI-RADS in Multimodality Imaging, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 Apr;216(4):860-873. [PubMed: 33295802]

26.Barazi H, Gunduru M. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Jul 31, 2023. Mammography BI RADS Grading. [PubMed: 30969638]

27.Magny SJ, Shikhman R, Keppke AL. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Aug 28, 2023. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. [PubMed: 29083600]

28.Expert Panel on Breast Imaging. Klein KA, Kocher M, Lourenco AP, Niell BL, Bennett DL, Chetlen A, Freer P, Ivansco LK, Jochelson MS, Kremer ME, Malak SF, McCrary M, Mehta TS, Neal CH, Porpiglia A, Ulaner GA, Moy L. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Palpable Breast Masses: 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol. 2023 May;20(5S):S146-S163. [PubMed: 37236740]

29.Tan KP, Mohamad Azlan Z, Rumaisa MP, Siti Aisyah Murni MR, Radhika S, Nurismah MI, Norlia A, Zulfiqar MA. The comparative accuracy of ultrasound and mammography in the detection of breast cancer. Med J Malaysia. 2014 Apr;69(2):79-85. [PubMed: 25241817]

30.Tripathi K, Yadav R, Maurya SK. A Comparative Study Between Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology and Core Needle Biopsy in Diagnosing Clinically Palpable Breast Lumps. Cureus. 2022 Aug;14(8):e27709. [PMC free article: PMC9441185] [PubMed: 36081980]

31.Vandeven HA, Pensler JM. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Aug 8, 2023. Gynecomastia. [PubMed: 28613563]

32.Johnson RE, Murad MH. Gynecomastia: pathophysiology, evaluation, and management. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009 Nov;84(11):1010-5. [PMC free article: PMC2770912] [PubMed: 19880691]

33.Gradishar WJ, Moran MS, Abraham J, Aft R, Agnese D, Allison KH, Anderson B, Burstein HJ, Chew H, Dang C, Elias AD, Giordano SH, Goetz MP, Goldstein LJ, Hurvitz SA, Isakoff SJ, Jankowitz RC, Javid SH, Krishnamurthy J, Leitch M, Lyons J, Mortimer J, Patel SA, Pierce LJ, Rosenberger LH, Rugo HS, Sitapati A, Smith KL, Smith ML, Soliman H, Stringer-Reasor EM, Telli ML, Ward JH, Wisinski KB, Young JS, Burns J, Kumar R. Breast Cancer, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022 Jun;20(6):691-722. [PubMed: 35714673]

34.Łukasiewicz E, Ziemiecka A, Jakubowski W, Vojinovic J, Bogucevska M, Dobruch-Sobczak K. Fine-needle versus core-needle biopsy – which one to choose in preoperative assessment of focal lesions in the breasts? Literature review. J Ultrason. 2017 Dec;17(71):267-274. [PMC free article: PMC5769667] [PubMed: 29375902]

Disclosure: Elsa Vadakekut declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Yana Puckett declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.