Mammographic calcifications undergoing percutaneous biopsy: outcome in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer.
Breast cancer
Digital mammography
Microcalcifications
Journal
La Radiologia medica
ISSN: 1826-6983
Titre abrégé: Radiol Med
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 0177625
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
16
08
2022
accepted:
20
12
2022
pubmed:
5
1
2023
medline:
25
2
2023
entrez:
4
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the positive predictive values (PPVs) of BI-RADS categories used to assess pure mammographic calcifications in women with and without a previous history of breast cancer (PHBC). In this retrospective study, all consecutive pure mammographic calcifications (n = 320) undergoing a stereotactic biopsy between 2016 and 2018 were identified. Mammograms were evaluated in consensus by two radiologists according to BI-RADS and blinded to patient history and pathology results. Final pathologic results were used as the standard of reference. PPV of BI-RADS categories were compared between the two groups. Data were evaluated using standard statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests and Chi-square tests. Two hundred sixty-eight patients (274 lesions, median age 54 years, inter-quartile range, 50-65 years) with a PHBC (n = 46) and without a PHBC (n = 222) were included. Overall PPVs were the following: BI-RADS 2, 0% (0 of 56); BI-RADS 3, 9.1% (1 of 11); BI-RADS 4a, 16.2% (6 of 37); BI-RADS 4b, 37.5% (48 of 128); BI-RADS 4c, 47.3% (18 of 38) and BI-RADS 5, 100% (4 of 4). The PPV of BI-RADS categories was similar in patients with and without a PHBC (P = .715). Calcifications were more often malignant in patients with a PHBC older than 10 years (47.3%, 9 of 19) compared to 1-2 years (25%, 1 of 4), 2-5 years (20%, 2 of 10) and 5-10 years (0%, of 13) from the first breast cancer (P = .005). PPV of mammographic calcifications is similar in women with or without PHBC when BI-RADS classification is strictly applied. A higher risk of malignancy was observed in patients with a PHBC longer than 10 years.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36598734
doi: 10.1007/s11547-022-01583-5
pii: 10.1007/s11547-022-01583-5
pmc: PMC9938807
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
149-159Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Anderson SJ, Wapnir I, Dignam JJ et al (2009) Prognosis after ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and locoregional recurrences in patients treated by breast-conserving therapy in five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocols of node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:2466–2473. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.19.8424
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.8424
pubmed: 19349544
pmcid: 2684852
Komoike Y, Akiyama F, Iino Y et al (2006) Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving treatment for early breast cancer: risk factors and impact on distant metastases. Cancer 106:35–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21551
doi: 10.1002/cncr.21551
pubmed: 16333848
Wernli KJ, Ichikawa L, Kerlikowske K et al (2019) Surveillance breast MRI and mammography: comparison in women with a personal history of breast cancer. Radiology 292:311–318. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182475
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182475
pubmed: 31161975
Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L et al (2018) Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol 15:408–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.11.034
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.11.034
pubmed: 29371086
Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S et al (2019) Early breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 30:1194–1220. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz173
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz173
pubmed: 31161190
Lu WL, Jansen L, Post WJ, Bonnema J, Van de Velde JC, De Bock GH (2009) Impact on survival of early detection of isolated breast recurrences after the primary treatment for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 114:403–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0023-4
doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-0023-4
pubmed: 18421576
Paszat L, Sutradhar R, Grunfeld E et al (2009) Outcomes of surveillance mammography after treatment of primary breast cancer: a population-based case series. Breast Canceres Treat 114:169–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-9986-4
doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-9986-4
Buist DSM, Abraham L, Lee CI et al (2018) Breast biopsy intensity and findings following breast cancer screening in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer. JAMA Intern Med 178:458–468. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.854
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.854
pubmed: 29435556
pmcid: 5876894
Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1233–1241. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022152
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152
pubmed: 12393820
Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1227–1232. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa020989
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020989
pubmed: 12393819
Chansakul T, Lai KC, Slanetz PJ (2012) The postconservation breast: part 1, expected imaging findings. Am J Roentgenol 198:321–330. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.7298
doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.7298
Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ (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. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111461
doi: 10.1148/radiol.12111461
pubmed: 23033499
Sickles E DOC, Bassett LW, et al. (2013) BI-RADS: Mammography, 5th edn. In: Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS–breast imaging atlas. American College of Radiology, Reston
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. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3423
doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3423
pubmed: 20410428
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. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2212010164
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2212010164
pubmed: 11687695
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. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2422052130
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2422052130
pubmed: 17255409
Buist DS, Abraham LA, Barlow WE et al (2010) Diagnosis of second breast cancer events after initial diagnosis of early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 124:863–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1106-6
doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-1106-6
pubmed: 20700648
pmcid: 2976764
Houssami N, Abraham LA, Miglioretti DL et al (2011) Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA 305:790–799. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.188
doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.188
pubmed: 21343578
pmcid: 3799940
Lu W, Schaapveld M, Jansen L et al (2009) The value of surveillance mammography of the contralateral breast in patients with a history of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 45:3000–3007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2009.08.007
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.08.007
pubmed: 19744851
Kettritz U, Rotter K, Schreer I et al (2004) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in 2874 patients: a multicenter study. Cancer 100:245–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11887
doi: 10.1002/cncr.11887
pubmed: 14716757
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. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648759
doi: 10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648759
pubmed: 9648759
Rominger M, Wisgickl C, Timmesfeld N (2012) Breast microcalcifications as type descriptors to stratify risk of malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10665 cases with special focus on round/punctate microcalcifications. Rofo 184:1144–1152. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1313102
doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1313102
pubmed: 22923222
Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ (2000) Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1769–1777. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.174.6.1741769
doi: 10.2214/ajr.174.6.1741769
pubmed: 10845521
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. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2392042127
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2392042127
pubmed: 16569780
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.09.010
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.09.010
pubmed: 27793579
Timmers JM, van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ, Verbeek AL, den Heeten GJ, Broeders MJ (2012) A dedicated BI-RADS training programme: effect on the inter-observer variation among screening radiologists. Eur J Radiol 81:2184–2188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.07.011
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.07.011
pubmed: 21899969
Elezaby M, Li G, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Burnside ES, DeMartini WB (2018) ACR BI-RADS assessment category 4 subdivisions in diagnostic mammography: utilization and outcomes in the national mammography database. Radiology 287:416–422. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170770
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170770
pubmed: 29315061
Tan-Chiu E, Wang J, Costantino JP et al (2003) Effects of tamoxifen on benign breast disease in women at high risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:302–307. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/95.4.302
doi: 10.1093/jnci/95.4.302
pubmed: 12591986
Kreike B, Hart AA, van de Velde T et al (2008) Continuing risk of ipsilateral breast relapse after breast-conserving therapy at long-term follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:1014–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.11.029
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.11.029
pubmed: 18234444
Bucchi L, Belli P, Benelli E et al (2016) (2016) Recommendations for breast imaging follow-up of women with a previous history of breast cancer: position paper from the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa) and the Italian College of Breast Radiologist (ICBR) by SIRM. Radiol Med 121:891–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-016-0676-8
doi: 10.1007/s11547-016-0676-8
pubmed: 27601142
pmcid: 5102938
Chansakul T, Lai KC, Slanetz PJ (2012) The postconservation breast: part 2, Imaging findings of tumor recurrence and other long-term sequelae. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:331–343. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.6881
doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.6881
pubmed: 22268175
Lam DL, Houssami N, Lee JM (2017) Imaging surveillance after primary breast cancer treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:676–686. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16300
doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16300
pubmed: 28075622
pmcid: 5458742
Grimm LJ, Miller MM, Thomas SM et al (2019) Growth dynamics of mammographic calcifications: differentiating ductal carcinoma in situ from benign breast disease. Radiology 292:77–83. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182599
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182599
pubmed: 31112087