| Literature DB >> 25896922 |
Madiha Naseem1,2, Joshua Murray3, John F Hilton4, Jason Karamchandani5,6, Derek Muradali7,8, Hala Faragalla9,10, Chanele Polenz11, Dolly Han12, David C Bell13, Christine Brezden-Masley14,15.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microcalcifications (MCs) are tiny deposits of calcium in breast soft tissue. Approximately 30% of early invasive breast cancers have fine, granular MCs detectable on mammography; however, their significance in breast tumorigenesis is controversial. This study had two objectives: (1) to find associations between mammographic MCs and tumor pathology, and (2) to compare the diagnostic value of mammograms and breast biopsies in identifying malignant MCs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25896922 PMCID: PMC4407616 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1312-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Figure 1Mammogram and pathology report for HER-2 positive patient. a: Digital Mammogram (Mammomat Novation, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) of the left breast from a 40 year old woman with a HER-2 positive invasive ductal carcinoma, shows a malignant appearing mass (arrows) with numerous pleomorphic calcifications confined to the mass, BI-RADS 5. b: Hematoxyln and eosin stained section (400×) of poorly differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma with microcalcification (arrowhead).
List of patient characteristics
| Patient characteristics | n (%) | Mean (±SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 58.1 (13.3) | |
| Tumor Size | 2.5 (1.9) | |
| Mammography Calcifications | ||
| Yes |
| |
| No |
| |
| Recurrence | ||
| Yes |
| |
| No |
| |
| Histology | ||
| Ductal |
| |
| Lobular |
| |
| Other |
| |
| Lymphovascular Invasion | ||
| Yes |
| |
| No |
| |
| Node | ||
| Positive |
| |
| Negative |
| |
| Tumor Grade | ||
| 1 |
| |
| 2 |
| |
| 3 |
| |
| Density | ||
| Almost entirely fatty |
| |
| Scattered |
| |
| Very dense |
| |
| Extremely dense |
| |
| Heterogeneously dense |
| |
| Other |
| |
| Bilaterality | ||
| Yes |
| |
| No |
| |
| Architectural Distortion | ||
| Yes |
| |
| No |
| |
| Focality | ||
| Unifocal |
| |
| Multifocal/Multicentric |
| |
| Menopausal Status | ||
| Pre |
| |
| Peri |
| |
| Post |
| |
| Diabetes | ||
| Yes |
| |
| No |
| |
| Family History of Breast Cancer | ||
| Yes |
| |
| No |
| |
| Children | ||
| Yes |
| |
| Yes-1st pregnancy ≥ 30 years |
| |
| Nulliparous |
| |
| HER-2 | ||
| Positive |
| |
| Negative |
| |
| ER | ||
| Positive |
| |
| Negative |
| |
| PR | ||
| Positive |
| |
| Negative |
|
This table outlines the proportion (n) of study patients with certain demographic, tumor pathologic, and mammographic characteristics. N = Number of patients in the sample, SD = Standard Deviation.
Statistical associations for the presence of MCs on mammography
| (a) Categorical variables | Microcalcifications | Test statistic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | |||||
| n | (%) | n | (%) | χ2 | p-value | |
| Recurrence | 1.28 |
| ||||
| Yes |
|
|
|
| ||
| No |
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Ductal |
|
|
|
| ||
| Lobular |
|
|
|
| ||
| Other |
|
|
|
| ||
| Lymphovascular Invasion | 1.98 |
| ||||
| Yes |
|
|
|
| ||
| No |
|
|
|
| ||
| Node Status | 0.08 |
| ||||
| Positive |
|
|
|
| ||
| Negative |
|
|
|
| ||
| Tumor Grade | 5.74 |
| ||||
| 1 |
|
|
|
| ||
| 2 |
|
|
|
| ||
| 3 |
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Almost entirely fatty |
|
|
|
| ||
| Scattered |
|
|
|
| ||
| Very dense |
|
|
|
| ||
| Extremely dense |
|
|
|
| ||
| Heterogeneously dense |
|
|
|
| ||
| Other |
|
|
|
| ||
| Bilaterality | 0.18 |
| ||||
| Yes |
|
|
|
| ||
| No |
|
|
|
| ||
| Architectural Distortion | 0.81 |
| ||||
| Yes |
|
|
|
| ||
| No |
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Multifocal/Multicentric |
|
|
|
| ||
| Unifocal |
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Pre |
|
|
|
| ||
| Peri |
|
|
|
| ||
| Post |
|
|
|
| ||
| Diabetes | 0.00 |
| ||||
| Yes |
|
|
|
| ||
| No |
|
|
|
| ||
| Family History | 1.66 |
| ||||
| Yes |
|
|
|
| ||
| No |
|
|
|
| ||
| Children | 4.33 |
| ||||
| Yes |
|
|
|
| ||
| Yes-after age 30 |
|
|
|
| ||
| No |
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Positive |
|
|
|
| ||
| Negative |
|
|
|
| ||
| ER | 0.36 |
| ||||
| Positive |
|
|
|
| ||
| Negative |
|
|
|
| ||
| PR | 1.42 |
| ||||
| Positive |
|
|
|
| ||
| Negative |
|
|
|
| ||
| (b) Continuous Variables | Microcalcification | Test Statistic | ||||
| No | Yes | |||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | t | p-value | |
| Age |
|
|
|
| 1.67 |
|
| Tumor Size |
|
|
|
| −1.58 |
|
This table outlines statistical associations between the presence of MCs and other variables of interest. Chi square values and p-values are outlines. P-values < 0.05 is considered statistically significant and highlighted in bold.
Figure 2Mammogram and pathology report for HER-2 negative patient. a: Digital Mammogram (Mammomat Novation, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) of the right breast from a 53 year old woman with HER-2 negative invasive ductal carcinoma, shows a lobulated mass (arrows) in the upper right breast, with no evidence of calcifications, BI-RADS 4. b: 400× H&E stained section of invasive ductal carcinoma of no special type composed of pleomorphic, mitotically active ductal epithelial cells with sheet-like growth.
Sensitivity of mammograms in detecting MCs in comparison to MCs identified in biopsy specimens
| Categorical variables | Microcalcifications (Pathology) | Test statistic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | |||||
| n | (%) | n | (%) | χ2 | p-value | |
| Microcalcifications (Mammography) |
|
| ||||
| No |
|
|
|
| ||
| Yes |
|
|
|
| ||
Bolded numbers indicate statistical significance. Of the 472 patients who had pathology samples available, 147 (31%) had a false negative result, where MCs were detected in pathology samples but not in mammography.