Objectives. This study reviewed the outcome of women attending a breast screening program recalled for assessment of microcalcifications and examined the incidence of a breast carcinoma detected during the following five years in any of the women who were given a benign diagnosis at assessment. Method. A retrospective study consisted of 235 clients attending an Australian BreastScreen program in 2003, who were recalled for investigation of microcalcifications detected on screening mammography. Records for the following five years were available for 168 women in the benign outcome group including those who did not require biopsy at initial assessment. Results. Malignant disease was detected in 26.0% ( ) of the women who underwent biopsy. None of the women in the benign outcome group, with available five-year follow-up records, developed a subsequent breast cancer, arising from the calcifications initially recalled in 2003. Conclusions. This study highlights the effectiveness of an Australian screening program in diagnosing malignancy in women with screen detected microcalcification. This has been achieved by correctly determining 38% ( ) of the women as benign without the need for biopsy or early recall. A low rate of open surgical biopsies was performed with no cancer diagnoses missed at the time of initial assessment. 1. Introduction The BreastScreen Australia Program screens over 1.5 million women for breast cancer throughout Australia every two years [1]. During the period 1993–2011, BreastScreen Australian Capital Territory and South East New South Wales (BreastScreen ACT & SENSW) offered a free screening mammography service to all female Australian citizens residing in the ACT and South East NSW. Though the service is targeted at women aged 50–69, women aged 40–49 years and older than 69 years were screened at their request. Screening involves two mammographic views of each breast: craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique. Abnormalities detected on screening mammography are categorised according to the imaging classifications (1–5) recommended by the National Breast Cancer Centre Breast Imaging Report [2]. The five breast imaging classifications are category 1, no significant abnormality; category 2, benign; category 3, indeterminate/equivocal; category 4, suspicious for malignancy; and category 5, radiologically malignant. At BreastScreen ACT & SENSW, a breast imaging classification 1 or 2 on screening mammogram is considered benign and results in the client being placed on recall for routine screening. A breast imaging classification 3, 4, or 5 on
References
[1]
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Department of Health and Ageing, BreastScreen Australia Monitoring Report 2004-2005 Cancer series no. 42, AIHW, Canberra, Australia, 2008.
[2]
National Breast Cancer Centre, “2002 Breast Imaging: A Guide for Practice,” National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre, Camperdown Sydney, 2002.
[3]
G. Farshid, T. Sullivan, P. Downey, P. G. Gill, and S. Pieterse, “Independent predictors of breast malignancy in screen-detected microcalcifications: biopsy results in 2545 cases,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 105, no. 11, pp. 1669–1675, 2011.
[4]
C. K. Bent, L. W. Bassett, C. J. D'Orsi, and J. W. Sayre, “The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 194, no. 5, pp. 1378–1383, 2010.
[5]
E. S. Burnside, J. E. Ochsner, K. J. Fowler et al., “Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy,” Radiology, vol. 242, no. 2, pp. 388–395, 2007.
[6]
C. M. Kuzmiak, R. Dancel, E. Pisano et al., “Consensus review: a method of assessment of calcifications that appropriately undergo a six-month follow-up,” Academic Radiology, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 621–629, 2006.
[7]
E. Lazarus, M. B. Mainiero, B. Schepps, S. L. Koelliker, and L. S. Livingston, “BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value,” Radiology, vol. 239, no. 2, pp. 385–391, 2006.
[8]
W. A. Berg, C. L. Arnoldus, E. Teferra, and M. Bhargavan, “Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications: pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy,” Radiology, vol. 221, no. 2, pp. 495–503, 2001.
[9]
R. J. Jackman and J. Rodriguez-Soto, “Breast microcalcifications: retrieval failure at prone stereotactic core and vacuum breast biopsy—frequency, causes, and outcome,” Radiology, vol. 239, no. 1, pp. 61–70, 2006.
[10]
E. Fondrinier, G. Lorimier, V. Guerin-Boblet, A.-F. Bertrand, C. Mayras, and N. Dauver, “Breast microcalcifications: multivariate analysis of radiologic and clinical factors for carcinoma,” World Journal of Surgery, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 290–296, 2002.
[11]
G. M. Tse, P.-H. Tan, H. S. Cheung, W. C. W. Chu, and W. W. M. Lam, “Intermediate to highly suspicious calcification in breast lesions: a radio-pathologic correlation,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2008.
[12]
L. Tabar, H.-H. T. Chen, M. F. A. Yen et al., “Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1–14-mm invasive breast carcinoma: suggestions for the reconsideration of current therapeutic practice and the TNM classification system,” Cancer, vol. 101, no. 8, pp. 1745–1759, 2004.
[13]
L. Tabar and P. B. Dean, Teaching Atlas of Mammography, Thieme, Stuttgart, Germany, 3rd edition, 2001.
[14]
A. Evans, S. Pinder, R. Wilson et al., “Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 162, no. 6, pp. 1307–1311, 1994.
[15]
A. J. Evans, S. E. Finder, I. O. Ellis, and A. R. M. Wilson, “Screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): overdiagnosis or an obligate precursor of invasive disease?” Journal of Medical Screening, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 149–151, 2001.
[16]
B. S. Shoker and J. P. Sloane, “DCIS grading schemes and clinical implications,” Histopathology, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 393–400, 1999.
[17]
J. Z. Thomson, A. J. Evans, S. E. Pinder, H. C. Burrell, A. R. M. Wilson, and I. O. Ellis, “Growth pattern of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): a retrospective analysis based on mammographic findings,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 225–227, 2001.
[18]
N. Houssami, S. Ciatto, M. Bilous, V. Vezzosi, and S. Bianchi, “Borderline breast core needle histology: predictive values for malignancy in lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3),” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 96, no. 8, pp. 1253–1257, 2007.
[19]
E. A. Sickles, “Breast calcifications: mammographic evaluation,” Radiology, vol. 160, no. 2, pp. 289–293, 1986.
[20]
J. E. Dahlstrom and S. Jain, “Histological correlation of mammographically detected microcalcifications in stereotactic core biopsies,” Pathology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 444–448, 2001.
[21]
L. Liberman, L. R. LaTrenta, K. J. Van Zee, E. A. Morris, A. F. Abramson, and D. D. Dershaw, “Stereotactic core biopsy of calcifications highly suggestive of malignancy,” Radiology, vol. 203, no. 3, pp. 673–677, 1997.
[22]
G. M. Fuhrman, G. J. Cederbom, J. S. Bolton et al., “Image-guided core-needle breast biopsy is an accurate technique to evaluate patients with nonpalpable imaging abnormalities,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 227, no. 6, pp. 932–939, 1998.
[23]
V. Kumaroswamy, J. Liston, and A. M. Shaaban, “Vacuum assisted stereotactic guided mammotome biopsies in the management of screen detected microcalcifications: experience of a large breast screening centre,” Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 766–769, 2008.
[24]
C. Balleyguier, S. Ayadi, K. Van Nguyen, D. Vanel, C. Dromain, and R. Sigal, “BIRADS classification in mammography,” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 192–194, 2007.
