Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Usefulness and limitations of the Japan Mammography Guidelines for the categorization of microcalcifications

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The Japan Mammography Guidelines, referred to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), are intended to standardize the terminology in mammographic reports and the assessment of findings and to recommend action to be taken. The Japan Mammography Guidelines have explicit guidelines for the categorization of microcalcifications. The purpose of this study was to assess the positive predictive value (PPV) of each categorization of microcalcifications according to the decision table proposed by the Japan Mammography Guidelines according to BI-RADS morphology and distribution parameters and the pathologic outcome.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of 101 non-palpable screening mammography-detected microcalcification lesions without mass that had stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVAB). This study was approved by our institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained for all SVAB. We classified microcalcification lesions according to the decision table. Histological findings were reviewed.

Results

In calcification morphology, all 32 punctate morphology microcalcifications, regardless of distribution, were benign (100%), whereas 25% (9/36) amorphous morphology microcalcifications, 67% (14/21) pleomorphic morphology microcalcifications and 92% (11/12) linear morphology microcalcifications were malignant. For calcification distribution, 28% (15/55) cluster distribution microcalcifications, 40% (17/43) segmental distribution microcalcifications and 67% (2/3) linear distribution microcalcifications were malignant. Features with high positive PPV showed segmental or linear distribution of linear morphology (100%, respectively), segmental distribution of pleomorphic morphology (100%) and cluster distribution of linear morphology (80%). The PPV for cluster punctate, cluster amorphous, cluster pleomorphic and cluster linear microcalcifications was 0, 21, 50 and 80%, respectively. The PPV for segmental punctate, segmental amorphous, segmental pleomorphic and segmental linear microcalcifications was 0, 27, 100 and 80%, respectively. The PPV for linear amorphous and linear linear microcalcifications was 50 and 100%.

Conclusions

The decision table proposed by the Japan Mammography Guidelines according to BI-RADS morphology and distribution parameters is useful, but continued development of the decision table to improve standardization in mammographic interpretation is needed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PPV:

Positive predictive value

SVAB:

Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy

DCIS:

Ductal carcinoma in situ

BI-RADS:

Breast imaging reporting and data system

US:

Ultrasonography

ADH:

Atypical ductal hyperplasia

ALH:

Atypical lobular hyperplasia

References

  1. Morrow M, Schnitt SJ, Harris JR. Ductal carcinoma in situ and microinvasive carcinoma. In: Harris JR, editor. Disease of the breast. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2000. p. 383–401.

  2. Bassett LW. Mammographic analysis of calcifications. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30:93–105.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. The Committee of Mammography Guideline (Japan Radiological Society, Japanese Society of Radiological Technology): Mammography Guideline 2nd ed. Igaku Syoin, Tokyo, 2004 (in Japanese).

  4. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th ed. In: Reston VA, editor. American College of Radiology, 2003.

  5. Pijnappel RM, Peeters PH, Hendriks JH, Mali WP. Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications. Br J Radiol. 2004;77:312–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fondrinier E, Lorimier G, Guerin-Boblet V, Bertrand AF, Mayras C, Dauver N. Breast microcalcifications: multivariate analysis of radiologic and clinical factors for carcinoma. World J Surg. 2002;26:290–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rubin E. Six-month follow-up: an alternative view. Radiology. 1999;213:15–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hall FM. Malignancy in BI-RADS category 3 mammographic lesions. Radiology. 2002;225:918–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Thornton CM, Rosen PP. Clip placement after stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology. 1997;205:417–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Soo MS, Rosen EL, Xia JQ, Ghate S, Baker JA. Computer-aided detection of amorphous calcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:887–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991;179:463–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. D’Orsi CJ. The American College of Radiology mammography lexicon: an initial attempt to standardize terminology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:779–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology. 1999;211:845–50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1769–77.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Stomper PC, Connolly JL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and tumor subtype. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159:483–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Evans A, Pinder S, Wilson R et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:1307–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kettritz U, Rotter K, Schreer I et al. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in 2,874 patients. Cancer. 2004;100:245–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M, Malekshamran K, Perez I, Ramos E. Evaluation of breast imaging reporting and data system category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice. Cancer. 2004;100:710–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M, Malekshamran K, Perez I, Ramos E. Mammographic features and correlation with biopsy findings using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVABB). Ann Oncol. 2003;15:450–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Uematsu T, Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;103:269–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Breast Imaging, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Naga-izumi, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan

    Takayoshi Uematsu & Sachiko Yuen

  2. Department of Pathology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan

    Masako Kasami

Authors
  1. Takayoshi Uematsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masako Kasami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sachiko Yuen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takayoshi Uematsu.

About this article

Cite this article

Uematsu, T., Kasami, M. & Yuen, S. Usefulness and limitations of the Japan Mammography Guidelines for the categorization of microcalcifications. Breast Cancer 15, 291–297 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-008-0033-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-008-0033-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation