Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer
Published in: Breast Cancer 4/2009

01-10-2009 | Original Article

A cluster of microcalcifications: women with high risk for breast cancer versus other women

Authors: Takayoshi Uematsu, Masako Kasami, Sachiko Yuen

Published in: Breast Cancer | Issue 4/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Abnormal screening mammographic findings are the most common presentation of ductal carcinoma in situ, which usually appears as a cluster of microcalcifications. No report has documented the risk of malignancy between the finding of a cluster of microcalcifications and women with high risk of breast cancer.

Methods

We investigated the morphologic descriptors of a cluster of microcalcifications in women with a high risk for breast cancer and compared the results with the characteristics of a cluster of microcalcifications in other women. A retrospective review was performed for 81 non-palpable clusters of microcalcifications that had stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.

Results

The frequency of malignancy associated with a cluster of microcalcifications was 27%. The 50% frequency of malignancy with high risk for breast cancer was higher, but not significantly so, than the 24% frequency of 71 cases without high risk for breast cancer (P = 0.125). The frequency of malignancy and ADH of a cluster of microcalcifications with high risk of breast cancer was 70%, significantly higher than the 30% frequency of 71 cases without high risk of breast cancer (P = 0.028).

Conclusions

A cluster of microcalcifications in women with high risk for breast cancer should be considered suspicious and referred for biopsy.
Literature
1.
Morrow M, Schnitt SJ, Harris JR. Ductal carcinoma in situ and microinvasive carcinoma. In: Harris JR, editor. Disease of the breast. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2000. p. 383–401.
2.
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.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Kettritz U, Morack G, Decker T. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsies 500 women with microcalcifications: radiological and pathological correlations. Eur J Radiol. 2005;55:270–6.PubMedCrossRef
4.
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.PubMedCrossRef
5.
American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.
6.
Burnside ES, Ochsner JE, Fowler KJ, Fine KJ, Salkowski LR, Rubin DL, et al. Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy. Radiology. 2007;242:388–95.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, Thickman, Hylton N, Warner E. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance. Cancer. 2005;103:1898–905.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3, 184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991;179:463–8.PubMed
9.
Evans A, Pinder S, Wilson R, Sibbering M, Poller D, Elston C, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings. Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:1307–11.
10.
Evans A. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: radiological diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5:250–3.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American cancer society guidelines for screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75–89.PubMedCrossRef
12.
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. Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:35–40.
13.
D’Orsi CJ. BI-RADS decoded: detailed guidance on potentially confusing issues. Radiol Clin N Am. 2007;45:751–63.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Page DL, Rogers LW. Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:1095–7.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Tavassoli FA, Norris HJ. A comparison of the results of long-term follow-up for atypical intraductal hyperplasia and intraductal hyperplasia of the breast. Cancer. 1990;65:518–29.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Dershaw D. Does LCIS or ALH without other high-risk lesions diagnosed on core biopsy require surgical excision? Breast J. 2003;9:1–3.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Cohen MA. Cancer upgrades at excisional biopsy after diagnosis of atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: some reasons why? Radiology. 2004;231:617–21.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Stomper PC, Cholewinski SP, Penetrante RB, Harlos JP, Tsangaris TN. Atypical hyperplasia: frequency and mammographic and pathologic relationships in excisional biopsies guided with mammography and clinical examination. Radiology. 1993;189:667–71.PubMed
19.
Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow up study. Cancer. 1985;55:2698–708.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Winchester DJ, Bernstein JR, Jeske JM, Nicholson MH, Hahn EA, Goldschmidt RA, et al. Upstaging of atypical ductal hyperplasia after vacuum-assisted 11-gauge stereotactic core needle biopsy. Arch Surg. 2003;138:619–23.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Stomper PC, Connolly JL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and tumor subtype. Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159:483–5.
22.
Liberman L, Drotman M, Morris EA, LaTrenta LR, Abramson AF, Zakowski MF, et al. Imaging-histologic discordance at percutaneous breast biopsy. Cancer. 2000;89:2538–46.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Foster MC, Helvier MA, Gregory NE, Rebner M, Nees AV, Paramagul C. Lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical lobular hyperplasia at core-needle biopsy: is excisional biopsy necessary? Radiology. 2004;231:813–9.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A cluster of microcalcifications: women with high risk for breast cancer versus other women
Authors
Takayoshi Uematsu
Masako Kasami
Sachiko Yuen
Publication date
01-10-2009
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Breast Cancer / Issue 4/2009
Print ISSN: 1340-6868
Electronic ISSN: 1880-4233
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-009-0100-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2009

Breast Cancer 4/2009 Go to the issue

Special Feature

Recent trends of HER-2 examination and a new strategy of trastuzumab therapy for primary and metastatic breast cancer

Conference Paper

Possible treatment strategies for triple-negative breast cancer on the basis of molecular characteristics

Special Feature

The role of trastuzumab in the management of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: an updated review

Conference Paper

Algorithm for in vitro diagnostic multivariate index assay

Conference Paper

Contemplating chemosensitivity of basal-like breast cancer based on BRCA1 dysfunction

Conference Paper

Clinicopathological characteristics of triple-negative breast cancers
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits