Best Practice Guidelines – DEGUM Recommendations on Breast Ultrasound

Abstract

Breast ultrasound has been established for many years as an important method in addition to mammography for clarifying breast findings. The goal of the Best Practice Guidelines Part III of the DEGUM breast ultrasound working group is to provide colleagues working in senology with information regarding the specific medical indications for breast ultrasound in addition to the current ultrasound criteria and assessment categories published in part I and the additional and optional sonographic diagnostic methods described in part II. The value of breast ultrasound for specific indications including follow-up, evaluation of breast implants, diagnostic workup of dense breast tissue, diagnostic workup during pregnancy and lactation, and the diagnostic workup of breast findings in men is discussed. Each section after the general information section contains a description of specific pathologies followed by a short summary and DEGUM recommendations for the particular indications. The latest S3 guidelines and AGO guidelines were taken into consideration.

Keywords

breast - ultrasound - mammography - Gynecology - Radiology

Publication History

Received: 13 March 2024

Accepted after revision: 05 October 2024

Article published online:
14 January 2025

• References

• 1 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-Leitlinie Früherkennung, Diagnose, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, Version 4.4, Juni 2021, AWMF Registernummer: 032-045OL.
• 2 AGO Guidelines Breast: Diagnostik und Therapie früher und fortgeschrittener Mammakarzinome, Version 2023.1D (15.04.2023) Brustkrebs Nachsorge. Kolberg-Liedtke C. & Möbus V.
• 3 Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Hille U. et al. Optimizing breast cancer follow-up: diagnostic value and costs of additional routine breast ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011; 37 (02) 198-206
• 4 Doubeni CA, Field TS, Ulcickas YoodM. et al. Patterns and predictors of mammography utilization among breast cancer survivors. Cancer 2006; 106 (11) 2482-2488
• 5 Secco GM, Gutierrez PA, Secco VL. et al. Is breast utrasound a good alternative to magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating implant integrity?. Radiologia (Engl Ed) 2022; 64 (Suppl. 01) 20-27
• 6 https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/PostApprovaStudies/default.htm
• 7 Gampper TJ Khoury H, Golllieb W. et al. Silicone gel implants in breast augmentation and reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 59 (05) 581-590
• 8 Venta LA, Salomon CG, Flisak ME. et al. Sonographic signs of breast implant rupture. Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166 (06) 1413-1419
• 9 DeBruhl ND, Gorczyca DP, Ahn CY. et al. Silicone breast implants: US evaluation. Radiology 1993; 189 (01) 95-98
• 10 Hahn M, Kuner RP, Scheler P. et al. Sonographic criteria for the confirmation of implant rotation and the development of an implant-capsule-interaction (“interface”) in anatomically formed textured breast implants with texturised Biocell-surface. Ultraschall in Med 2008; 29 (04) 399-404
• 11 Lake E, Ahmad S, Dobrashian R. The sonographic appearances of breast implant rupture. Clin Radiol 2013; 68 (08) 851-858
• 12 von Fritschen U, Solbach C, Prantl L. Wie sicher sind Silikonimplantate?. Senologie 2019; 16: 92-93
• 13 Mundinger A, Bader W. Rolle der Sonografie bei der Früherkennung des Mammakarzinoms. Tumor.Diagn. u. Ther 2019; 40: 417-424
• 14 Weigel S, Heindel W, Dietz C. et al. Digitales Mammographie-Screening: Parenchymdichte und Programm-Sensitivität im Multicenter Ansatz. Abstractband. Deutscher Röntgenkongress 2018;
• 15 Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination and breast ultrasound and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225 (01) 165-175
• 16 Gießelmann K. Über die Dichte spricht man nicht. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2015; 1118-1119
• 17 Müller-Schimpfle M, Brandenbusch VC, Degenhardt F. Zur Problematik der dichten Brust – AK Mammasonografie der DEGUM. Senologie 2016; 13: 76-81
• 18 Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP. et al. Supplemental Screening fopr Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164 (04) 268-278
• 19 Gilbert FJ, Selamoglu A. Personalised screening: is this the way forward?. Clin Radiol 2018 Apr 73 (04) 327-333
• 20 Barr RG, Zhang Z, Cormack JB. et al. 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 (03) 701-712
• 21 Rebolj M, Assi V, Brentnall A. et al. Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J Cancer 2018; 118 (12) 1559-1570
• 22 Vourtsis A, Berg WA. Breast Density Implications and supplemental Screening. Eur Radiol 2019; 29 (04) 1762-1777
• 23 Tagliafico AS, Mariscotti G, Valdora F. et al. A prospective comparative trial of adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts (ASTOUND-2). EUR J Cancer 2018; 104: 39-46
• 24 Berg WA, Rafferty EA, Friedewald SM. et al. Screening algorithms in dense breasts: Am J Roentgenol Expertppanel Narrative Review. Am J Roentgenol 2021; 216 (02) 275-294
• 25 Berg WA, Bandos AI, Mendelson EB. et al. Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 108 (04)
• 26 Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T. et al. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387: 341-348
• 27 Best Practice Guideline – Empfehlungen der DEGUM zur Durchführung und Beurteilung der Mammasonografie Teil I.
• 28 Best Practice Guideline – Empfehlungen der DEGUM zur Durchführung und Beurteilung der Mammasonografie Teil II.
• 29 Girardi V, Tonegutti M, Ciatto S. et al. Breast ultrasound in 22,131 asymptomatic women with negative mammography. Breast 2013; 22 (05) 806-809