Search

Hyperechoic lesions of the breast encompass a wide range of conditions that are occasionally encountered during breast ultrasonography. Although typical hyperechoic lesions with a distinct fat component on imaging are well known, some hyperechoic lesions are diagnosed as unexpected pathology, making the radiology-pathology correlation difficult. Therefore, understanding the pathology of these lesions and how it correlates with imaging findings can help radiologists accurately diagnose and properly manage a range of related conditions. This article presents a pictorial review of unexpected hyperechoic benign and malignant breast lesions, with a focus on the pathological conditions that give rise to the hyperechoic pattern.

Although breast ultrasonography is the mainstay modality for differentiating between benign and malignant breast masses, it has intrinsic problems with false positives and substantial interobserver variability. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly with deep learning models, is expected to improve workflow efficiency and serve as a second opinion. AI is highly useful for performing three main clinical tasks in breast ultrasonography: detection (localization/segmentation), differential diagnosis (classification), and prognostication (prediction). This article provides a current overview of AI applications in breast ultrasonography, with a discussion of methodological considerations in the development of AI models and an up-to-date literature review of potential clinical applications.

Purpose Absorbable retaining thread (ART) needle localization utilizes a guiding needle with a thread; this technique was invented to reduce patient discomfort and wire migration. We investigated the feasibility of ultrasound (US)-guided ART needle localization for nonpalpable breast lesions. Methods ART needle localization was performed for 26 nonpalpable breast lesions in 26 patients who were scheduled to undergo surgical excision the day after localization. Seventeen breast lesions were initially diagnosed as invasive ductal carcinoma, six as ductal carcinomas in situ, and one as fibrocystic change. The other two cases without an initial pathologic diagnosis had suspicious US features, and excision was planned concomitantly with contralateral breast cancer surgery. The primary outcome was the technical success rate of ART needle localization confirmed by US immediately after the procedure, and the secondary outcomes were the percentage of clear margins on pathology and the complication rate of ART needle localization. Results The technical success rate of ART needle localization was 96.2% (25 of 26 patients), and the ART was located 1 cm away from the mass in one patient (3.8%). The lesions were successfully removed with clear margins in all 26 patients. No significant complications related to ART needle localization were observed. Conclusion ART needle localization can be an alternative to wire needle localization for nonpalpable breast lesions.