Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cancer yield and imaging features of probably benign calcifications at digital magnification view

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the malignancy rate of probably benign calcifications assessed by digital magnification view and imaging and clinical features associated with malignancy.

Methods

This retrospective study included consecutive women with digital magnification views assessed as probably benign for calcifications without other associated mammographic findings from March 2009 to January 2014. Initial studies rendering a probably benign assessment were analyzed, with biopsy or 4-year imaging follow-up. Fisher’s exact test and univariable logistic regression were performed. Cancer yields were calculated.

Results

A total of 458 lesions in 422 patients were finally included. The overall cancer yield was 2.2% (10 of 458, invasive cancer [n = 4] and DCIS [n = 6]). Calcification distribution (OR = 23.80, p = .041), calcification morphology (OR = 10.84, p = .005), increased calcifications (OR = 29.40, p = .001), and having a concurrent newly diagnosed breast cancer or high-risk lesion (OR = 10.24, p = .001) were associated with malignancy. Cancer yields did not significantly differ between grouped punctate calcifications vs. calcifications with other features (1.2% [2 of 162] vs. 2.7% [8 of 296], p = .506). The cancer yield was 1.6% (7 of 437) in women without newly diagnosed breast cancer or high-risk lesions.

Conclusion

The cancer yield of probably benign calcifications assessed by digital magnification view was below the 2% threshold for grouped punctate calcifications and for women without newly diagnosed breast cancer or high-risk lesions. Calcification distribution, morphology, increase in calcifications, and the presence of newly diagnosed breast cancer/high-risk lesion were associated with malignancy.

Key Points

• Among 458 probably benign calcifications assessed by digital magnification view, the overall cancer yield was 2.2% (10 of 458).

• The cancer yield was below the 2% threshold for grouped punctate calcifications (1.2%, 2 of 162) and in women without newly diagnosed breast cancer or high-risk lesions (1.6%, 7 of 437).

• Calcification distribution, morphology, increase in calcifications, and the presence of newly diagnosed breast cancer/high-risk lesion were associated with malignancy (all p < .05).

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ACR:

American College of Radiology

DCIS:

Ductal carcinoma in situ

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo L et al (2001) Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 219:475–483

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH (1992) Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 184:409–414

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sickles EA (1998) Findings at mammographic screening on only one standard projection: outcomes analysis. Radiology 208:471–475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD (1991) Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 178:155–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. American College of Radiology (2013) Breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

  6. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD (1998) The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:35–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F (2002) Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:691–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Michaels A, Chung CS, Birdwell RL, Frost EP, Giess CS (2017) Imaging and histopathologic features of BI-RADS 3 lesions upgraded during imaging surveillance. Breast J 23:10–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee CS, Berg JM, Berg WA (2021) Cancer yield exceeds 2% for BI-RADS 3 probably benign findings in women older than 60 years in the National Mammography Database. Radiology 299:550–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S et al (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lehman CD, Rutter CM, Eby PR, White E, Buist DS, Taplin SH (2008) Lesion and patient characteristics associated with malignancy after a probably benign finding on community practice mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:511–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoff SR, Abrahamsen AL, Samset JH, Vigeland E, Klepp O, Hofvind S (2012) Breast cancer: missed interval and screening-detected cancer at full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography-- results from a retrospective review. Radiology 264:378–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gruber R, Jaromi S, Rudas M et al (2013) Histologic work-up of non-palpable breast lesions classified as probably benign at initial mammography and/or ultrasound (BI-RADS category 3). Eur J Radiol 82:398–403

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dillon MF, McDermott EW, Quinn CM, O'Doherty A, O'Higgins N, Hill AD (2006) Predictors of invasive disease in breast cancer when core biopsy demonstrates DCIS only. J Surg Oncol 93:559–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kessar P, Perry N, Vinnicombe SJ, Hussain HK, Carpenter R, Wells CA (2002) How significant is detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme? Clin Radiol 57:807–814

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hofvind S, Iversen BF, Eriksen L, Styr BM, Kjellevold K, Kurz KD (2011) Mammographic morphology and distribution of calcifications in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in organized screening. Acta Radiol 52:481–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Haneuse S, Buist DSM, Miglioretti DL et al (2012) Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice. Radiology 262:69–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brodersen J, Siersma VD (2013) Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med 11:106–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Oligane HC, Berg WA, Bandos AI et al (2018) Grouped amorphous calcifications at mammography: frequently atypical but rarely associated with aggressive malignancy. Radiology 288:671–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS (2006) BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 239:385–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee AY, Wisner DJ, Aminololama-Shakeri S et al (2017) Inter-reader variability in the use of BI-RADS descriptors for suspicious findings on diagnostic mammography: a multi-institution study of 10 academic radiologists. Acad Radiol 24:60–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lei C, Wei W, Liu Z et al (2019) Mammography-based radiomic analysis for predicting benign BI-RADS category 4 calcifications. Eur J Radiol 121:108711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stelzer PD, Steding O, Raudner MW, Euller G, Clauser P, Baltzer PAT (2020) Combined texture analysis and machine learning in suspicious calcifications detected by mammography: potential to avoid unnecessary stereotactical biopsies. Eur J Radiol 132:109309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu H, Chen Y, Zhang Y et al (2021) A deep learning model integrating mammography and clinical factors facilitates the malignancy prediction of BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications in breast cancer screening. Eur Radiol 31:5902–5912

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a faculty research grant of Yonsei University College of Medicine for 2019 (6-2019-0178). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by a faculty research grant of Yonsei University College of Medicine for 2019 (6-2019-0178). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiologic Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea

    Minah Lee, Min Jung Kim, Jung Hyun Yoon & Vivian Youngjean Park

  2. Department of Radiology, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Korea

    Si Eun Lee

  3. Biostatistics Collaboration Unit, Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Hye Rim Kim

Authors
  1. Minah Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Si Eun Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hye Rim Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Min Jung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jung Hyun Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vivian Youngjean Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vivian Youngjean Park.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Vivian Youngjean Park

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Statistics and biometry

Biostatistics Collaboration Unit of Yonsei University College of Medicine kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, M., Lee, S.E., Kim, H.R. et al. Cancer yield and imaging features of probably benign calcifications at digital magnification view. Eur Radiol 32, 4909–4918 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08596-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08596-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation