Skip to main content

Mammography: How to Interpret Microcalcifications

  • Chapter
Diseases of the Abdomen and Pelvis 2014–2017

Abstract

Almost half of all breast cancers are associated with calcifications on mammography; in many cases, calcifications are the only sign of breast cancer. However, calcifications may also occur in a variety of benign breast changes [1], and careful classification and interpretation of breast calcifications is the key to a correct diagnosis. It is also important to realize that a large overlap between benign and malignant calcifications exists (Fig. 1), and often, confirmation or exclusion of malignancy can only be achieved by obtaining tissue for histological analysis. There are several criteria by which benign and malignant breast calcifications can be distinguished, such as size, number, morphology, distribution, change over time, and associated findings or symptoms [2]. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®) Atlas of the American College of Radiology (ACR) provides an organized framework for description and classification of mammographic calcifications [3] and has found wide-spread acceptance around the world. Wherever applicable, standardized terms from the BI-RADS® lexicon are used in this manuscript.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tse GM, Tan PH, Pang AL et al (2008) Calcification in breast lesions: pathologists’ perspective. J Clin Pathol 61:145–151.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Demetri-Lewis A, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL (2012) Breast calcifications: the focal group. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:W325–W343.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Burnside ES, Ochsner JE, Fowler KJ et al (2007) Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy. Radiology 242:388–395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. American College of Radiology (2003) ACR BI-RADS®. Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. Mammography, Breast Ultrasound, Magnetic Resonance Imaging. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Bick U, Hamm B (2002) Reduceddose digital mammography of skin calcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:473–474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Monsees BS (1995) Evaluation of breast microcalcifications. Radiol Clin North Am 33:1109–1121.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bassett LW (1992) Mammographic analysis of calcifications. Radiol Clin North Am 30:93–105.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sickles EA (1986) Breast calcifications: mammographic evaluation. Radiology 160:289–293.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cowen AR, Launders JH, Jadav M, Brettle DS (1997) Visibility of microcalcifications in computed and screen-film mammography. Phys Med Biol 42:1533–1548.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karssemeijer N, Frieling JTM, Hendriks JHCL (1993) Spatial resolution in digital mammography. Invest Radiol 28:413–419.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Graf O, Berg WA, Sickles EA (2013) Large rodlike calcifications at mammography: analysis of morphologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:299–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hofvind S, Iversen BF, Eriksen L et al (2011) Mammographic morphology and distribution of calcifications in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in organized screening. Acta Radiol 52:481–487.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bent CK, Bassett LW, D’Orsi CJ, Sayre JW (2010) The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1378–1383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berg WA, Arnoldus CL, Teferra E, Bhargavan M (2001) Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications: pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. Radiology 221:495–503.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sickles EA (1991) Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 179:463–468.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S et al (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:860–866.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA et al (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. Eur Radiol 18:183–191.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N et al (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265:707–714.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bick U, Diekmann F (2007) Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know? Eur Radiol 17:1931–1942.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fallenberg EM, Dimitrijevic L, Diekmann F et al (2013) Impact of magnification views on the characterization of microcalcifications in digital mammography. Fortschr Röntgenstr Doi:10.1055/s-0033-1350572.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosyn-thesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gunhan-Bilgen I, Oktay A (2007) Management of microcalcifications developing at the lumpectomy bed after conservative surgery and radiation therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:393–398.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schueller G, Schueller-Weidekamm C, Helbich TH (2008) Accuracy of ultrasound-guided, large-core needle breast biopsy. Eur Radiol 18:1761–1773.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Weigel S, Decker T, Korsching E (2011) Minimal invasive biopsy results of “uncertain malignant potential” in digital mammography screening: high prevalence but also high predictive value for malignancy. Fortschr Röntgenstr 183:743–748.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Penco S, Rizzo S, Bozzini AC et al (2010) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy is not a therapeutic procedure even when all mammographically found calcifications are removed: analysis of 4,086 procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:1255–1260.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jackman RJ, Marzoni FA, Jr., Rosenberg J (2009) False-negative diagnoses at stereotactic vacuum-assisted needle breast biopsy: long-term follow-up of 1,280 lesions and review of the literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:341–351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bick, U. (2014). Mammography: How to Interpret Microcalcifications. In: Hodler, J., von Schulthess, G.K., Kubik-Huch, R.A., Zollikofer, C.L. (eds) Diseases of the Abdomen and Pelvis 2014–2017. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5659-6_40

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5659-6_40

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Milano

  • Print ISBN: 978-88-470-5658-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-88-470-5659-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics