Mass shape, margin, and density as found with screening mammography
When a mammogram is interpreted by a radiologist, there are a number of characteristic abnormalities in breast tissue which they will be looking for. Sometimes they will note simple changes in density,a 'distortion', or the presence of microcalcifications, but at others times the breast X-ray will clearly reveal a 'mass', which may not be clinically palpable. Most breast masses occur due to benign causes, but certain characteristics of mass may be more suspcisious for breast cancer.
When is a 'lesion' called a 'mass' ?
A mass is usually something a little more substantial and clear than a 'lesion' per se. A mass has volume; it occupies space. It may be in any shape but usually with convex outside borders. It tends to be denser in the middle than towards the edges. A mass will not be interspersed with fat cells to the same degree as non-affected tissue. A mass found during a mammogram will typically be described according to it's shape, density ( the amount of fat cells present and density of suspicious cells), and its margin (characteristics of it's 'edge').
Summary of typical mass characteristics
|Shape ||Likely Benign ||Suspicious ||Highly Suspicious of Malignancy |
|Round ||X || || |
|Oval ||X || || |
|Lobular ||X ||X || |
|Irregular || || ||X |
If the mass appears more like a 'lobule' than a purely round or oval shape, then it is somewhat more suspicious for breast cancer. Masses appearing with a very irregular, or 'random' shape or highly suspicious for breast cancer.
Breast mass density is expressed according to the relative amount of fat tissue present
|Density ||Likely Benign ||Suspicious ||Highly Suspicious of Malignancy |
|Quite fatty ||X || || |
|Low ||X || || |
|Iso ||X ||X || |
|High || || ||X |
The 'density' of a mass, in terms of the relative amounts of fatty elements present, becomes highly suspcious for breast cancer when the density is high. In other words, when there is little mammographic evidence of fatty tissue within the mass, this tends to suggest that the mass is composed primarily of malignant cancer cells.
The margin of the breast mass is suspicious for breast cancer when it is ill-defined or spiculated
|Margin ||Likely Benign ||Suspicious ||Highly Suspicious of Malignancy |
|Well-defined ||X || || |
|Obscured/75% hidden or more || ||X || |
|Microlubulated || ||X || |
|Indistinct and ill-defined || ||X ||X |
|Spiculated || || ||X |
A radiologist interpreting a breast cancer screening mammogram will be alarmed when they discover a mass with an poorly defined or spiculated margin. Or, if the margin seems 'blurry', that might indicate that breast cancer cells are infiltrating into the surrounding tissue. Most benign breast lesions and tumors have well-defined borders, but not all. A mass with an ill-defined margin will certainly be re-evaluated using ultrasound (ultrasound is quite good for determining the nature of mass borders), and sent for biopsy if there is still concern.
Remember that mass is but one of many diagnostic characteristics with breast cancer. Other techniques and attributes are then used to predict the potential malignancy of the lesion and the extent to which it may have spread.
- American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System. Fifth edition. Reston V A, American College of Radiology 2003.
- Gajdos, C., Tartler, PI, Beiweiss, IJ., Hermann, G., de Csepel, J., Eastabrook, A., Rademaker, A., Mammographic Appearance of Nonpalpable Breast Cancer Reflects Pathologic Characteristics. Ann Surg. 2002 February; 235(2): 246251.
- Yokoe T, Maemura M, Takei H, et al. Efficacy of mammography for detecting early breast cancer in women under 50. Anticancer Res 1998; 18: 47094712.
- Sampat MP, Whitman GJ, Stephens TW, Broemeling LD, Heger NA, Bovik AC, Markey MK. The reliability of measuring physical characteristics of spiculated masses on mammography. Br J Radiol. 2006 Dec;79 Spec No 2:S134-40.
- Evans AJ, Wilson ARM, Burrell HC, et al. Mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ present on previous mammography. Clin Radiol. 1999;54:644-646.
- R. M. Rangayyan, N. M. El-Faramawy, J. E. Desautels, and O. A. Alim. Measures of acutance and shape for classification of breast tumors. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 16(6):799-810, 1997.
- Lamb, P. Correlation Between Ultrasound Characteristics, Mammographic Findings and Histological Grade in Patients with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast. Clinical Radiology, Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages 40-44
- Evans WP, Warren Burhenne LJ, Laurie L, O'Shaughnessy KF, Castellino RA.Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic characteristics and computer-aided detection. Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):182-9.
- Cornford EJ, Wilson AR, Athanassiou E, et al. Mammographic features of invasive lobular and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: a comparative analysis. Br J Radiol 1995; 68:450-453.
- Verheus M, Maskarinec G, Erber E, Steude JS, Killeen J, Hernandez BY, Cline JM.Mammographic density and epithelial histopathologic markers.BMC Cancer. 2009 Jun 13;9:182.
- Surendiran, B. Sundaraiah, Y. Vadivel, A. Classifying Digital Mammogram Masses Using Univariate ANOVA Discriminant Analysis. Advances in Recent Technologies in Communication and Computing, 2009.( November 2009)p. 175 - 177
- Stein L, Chellman-Jeffers M.The radiologic workup of a palpable breast mass.Cleve Clin J Med. 2009 Mar;76(3):175-80.
- Mu, T., Nandi, AK., Rangayyan, RM. Classification of breast masses via transformation of features using kernel principal component analysis. BIEN '07 Proceedings of the fifth IASTED International Conference: biomedical engineering .(2007)
- Eberl MM, Fox CH, Edge SB, Carter CA, Mahoney MC.BI-RADS classification for management of abnormal mammograms.J Am Board Fam Med. 2006 Mar-Apr;19(2):161-4.
Back to breast cancer screening list.