Literature DB >> 27752832

Suspicious breast calcifications undergoing stereotactic biopsy in women ages 70 and over: Breast cancer incidence by BI-RADS descriptors.

Lars J Grimm1, David Y Johnson2, Karen S Johnson2, Jay A Baker2, Mary Scott Soo2, E Shelley Hwang3, Sujata V Ghate2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the malignancy rate overall and for specific BI-RADS descriptors in women ≥70 years who undergo stereotactic biopsy for calcifications.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 14,577 consecutive mammogram reports in 6839 women ≥70 years to collect 231 stereotactic biopsies of calcifications in 215 women. Cases with missing images or histopathology and calcifications associated with masses, distortion, or asymmetries were excluded. Three breast radiologists determined BI-RADS descriptors by majority. Histology, hormone receptor status, and lymph node status were correlated with BI-RADS descriptors.
RESULTS: There were 131 (57 %) benign, 22 (10 %) atypia/lobular carcinomas in situ, 55 (24 %) ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS), and 23 (10 %) invasive diagnoses. Twenty-seven (51 %) DCIS cases were high-grade. Five (22 %) invasive cases were high-grade, two (9 %) were triple-negative, and three (12 %) were node-positive. Malignancy was found in 49 % (50/103) of fine pleomorphic, 50 % (14/28) of fine linear, 25 % (10/40) of amorphous, 20 % (3/15) of round, 3 % (1/36) of coarse heterogeneous, and 0 % (0/9) of dystrophic calcifications.
CONCLUSIONS: Among women ≥70 years that underwent stereotactic biopsy for calcifications only, we observed a high rate of malignancy. Additionally, coarse heterogeneous calcifications may warrant a probable benign designation. KEY POINTS: • Cancer rates of biopsied calcifications in women ≥70 years are high • Radiologists should not dismiss suspicious calcifications in older women • Coarse heterogeneous calcifications may warrant a probable benign designation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Calcifications; Carcinoma, ductal, breast; Carcinoma, intraductal noninfiltrating; Mammography; Stereotactic techniques

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27752832     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4617-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  29 in total

1.  Is screening mammography effective in elderly women?

Authors:  R Smith-Bindman; K Kerlikowske; T Gebretsadik; J Newman
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.965

2.  Continuing screening mammography in women aged 70 to 79 years: impact on life expectancy and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; P Salzmann; K A Phillips; J A Cauley; S R Cummings
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-12-08       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.

Authors:  Anthony J Viera; Joanne M Garrett
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.756

4.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review.

Authors:  Bircan Erbas; Elena Provenzano; Jane Armes; Dorota Gertig
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up.

Authors:  Eric L Rosen; Jay A Baker; Mary Scott Soo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Computational approach to radiogenomics of breast cancer: Luminal A and luminal B molecular subtypes are associated with imaging features on routine breast MRI extracted using computer vision algorithms.

Authors:  Lars J Grimm; Jing Zhang; Maciej A Mazurowski
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Improved prognosis of women aged 75 and older with mammography-detected breast cancer.

Authors:  Judith A Malmgren; Jay Parikh; Mary K Atwood; Henry G Kaplan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Barriers to clinical trial participation by older women with breast cancer.

Authors:  M Margaret Kemeny; Bercedis L Peterson; Alice B Kornblith; Hyman B Muss; Judith Wheeler; Ellis Levine; Nancy Bartlett; Gini Fleming; Harvey J Cohen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-06-15       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 10.  Biology of breast cancer in young women.

Authors:  Hatem A Azim; Ann H Partridge
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  3 in total

1.  Breast microcalcifications: the UK RCR 5-point breast imaging system or BI-RADS; which is the better predictor of malignancy?

Authors:  Linda Metaxa; Nuala A Healy; Sylvia A O'Keeffe
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Scoring System to Stratify Malignancy Risks for Mammographic Microcalcifications Based on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 5th Edition Descriptors.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Youk; Hye Mi Gweon; Eun Ju Son; Na Lae Eun; Eun Jung Choi; Jeong Ah Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 3.500

3.  Malignancy Risk Stratification Prediction of Amorphous Calcifications Based on Clinical and Mammographic Features.

Authors:  Lijuan Shen; Xiaowen Ma; Tingting Jiang; Xigang Shen; Wentao Yang; Chao You; Weijun Peng
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 3.989

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.