Clinical Radiology
Volume 65, Issue 2 , Pages 145-149, February 2010

Pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia: a study of the mammographic and sonographic features

  • L. Celliers

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia
    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: Department of Radiology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Hospital Avenue, Nedlands, Western Australia, 6009. Tel.: +61 08 9346 2233; fax: +61 08 9346 2091.
  • ,
  • D.D. Wong

      Affiliations

    • PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Department of Anatomical Pathology, Nedlands, Western Australia
  • ,
  • A. Bourke

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia

Received 5 May 2009; received in revised form 13 October 2009; accepted 18 October 2009.

Aim

To review the imaging features on mammogram and ultrasound of pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH) of the breast.

Materials and methods

A systematic search of the breast cancer screening centre and pathology department database at a teaching hospital was performed to identify cases reported as PASH between 2000 and 2007. The findings on mammogram and ultrasound were reviewed. Information on demographics and clinical outcome were obtained from the patient's medical records.

Results

Seventy-three cases of PASH were identified, which occurred in women with a mean age of 51.1±10.5 years. The mean size of the lesion was 18mm. Up to 70.8% of cases were radiologically detected and 29.2% presented as palpable masses. The most common appearance on mammography was of a solitary, non-calcified mass (30.4%) or localized increased stroma (30.4%). The distribution of mammographic findings differed in screen-detected patients compared with those presenting clinically (p=0.015, Fisher's exact test). The most frequent sonographic appearance was of a well-defined hypoechoic mass (36.7%).

Conclusion

Although there are emerging patterns associated with PASH on imaging, the features are not sufficiently specific to allow for a prospective diagnosis. Histological confirmation, preferably with core biopsy, should always be considered.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0009-9260(09)00359-6

doi:10.1016/j.crad.2009.10.003

Clinical Radiology
Volume 65, Issue 2 , Pages 145-149, February 2010