The association between mammographic calcifications and breast cancer prognostic factors in a population-based registry cohort

Cancer

Volumn 123, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 219-227

  Nyante, Sarah J ^a,b,c   Lee, Sheila S ^a   Benefield, Thad S ^a   Hoots, Tiffany N ^a,d   Henderson, Louise M ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b IL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^d Pharmaceutical Product Development   (United States)

Author keywords

breast cancer; disease attributes; mammography; physiologic calcification; prognostic factors

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA IN SITU; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER REGISTRY; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR POSITIVE BREAST CANCER; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NORTH CAROLINA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR POSITIVE BREAST CANCER; RADIOLOGIST; TUMOR VOLUME; AGED; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; COMPLICATION; ODDS RATIO; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; REGISTER; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; ODDS RATIO; PROGNOSIS; REGISTRIES; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84995644662     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30281     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. ACR BI-RADS Atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.
2. Venkatesan A, Chu P, Kerlikowske K, Sickles EA, Smith-Bindman R. Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables. Radiology. 2009;250:648–657.
3. Sickles EA. Breast calcifications: mammographic evaluation. Radiology. 1986;160:289–293.
4. Bent CK, Bassett LW, D'Orsi CJ, Sayre JW. The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1378–1383.
5. 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.
6. Burnside ES, Ochsner JE, Fowler KJ, et al. Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy. Radiology. 2007;242:388–395.
7. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:35–40.
8. Tabar L, Chen HH, Duffy SW, et al. A novel method for prediction of long-term outcome of women with T1a, T1b, and 10-14 mm invasive breast cancers: a prospective study. Lancet. 2000;355:429–433.
9. James JJ, Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Macmillan RD, Wilson AR, Ellis IO. Is the presence of mammographic comedo calcification really a prognostic factor for small screen-detected invasive breast cancers? Clin Radiol. 2003;58:54–62.
10. Tabar L, Tony Chen HH, Amy Yen MF, et al. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1-14-mm invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;101:1745–1759.
11. Evans AJ, Pinder SE, James JJ, Ellis IO, Cornford E. Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screening-detected invasive breast cancer? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1377–1380.
12. Palka I, Ormandi K, Gaal S, Boda K, Kahan Z. Casting-type calcifications on the mammogram suggest a higher probability of early relapse and death among high-risk breast cancer patients. Acta Oncol. 2007;46:1178–1183.
13. Mansson E, Bergkvist L, Christenson G, Persson C, Warnberg F. Mammographic casting-type calcifications is not a prognostic factor in unifocal small invasive breast cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study. J Surg Oncol. 2009;100:670–674.
14. Gajdos C, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss IJ, et al. Mammographic appearance of nonpalpable breast cancer reflects pathologic characteristics. Ann Surg. 2002;235:246–251.
15. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Huh MO, et al. Correlation between mammographic and sonographic findings and prognostic factors in patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer. Br J Radiol. 2011;84:19–30.
16. Malik HZ, Wilkinson L, George WD, Purushotham AD. Preoperative mammographic features predict clinicopathological risk factors for the development of local recurrence in breast cancer. Breast. 2000;9:329–333.
17. Naseem M, Murray J, Hilton JF, et al. Mammographic microcalcifications and breast cancer tumorigenesis: a radiologic-pathologic analysis. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:307.
18. Yankaskas BC, Jones MB, Aldrich TE. The Carolina Mammography Registry: a population-based mammography and cancer surveillance project. J Registry Manage. 1996;23:175–178.
19. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
20. Adamo M Dickie L Ruhl J. SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2015. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2015.
21. Fritz A, Percy C, Jack A, et al. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology. 3rd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2000.
22. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Collaborative Stage Data Collection System: Breast CS Site-Specific Factor 6 - Size of Tumor-Invasive Component [definition dated 06/12/2013]. Available from: http://web2.facs.org/cstage0205/breast/Breast_oaa.html. Accessed December 10, 2015.
23. Henderson LM, Miglioretti DL, Kerlikowske K, Wernli KJ, Sprague BL, Lehman CD. Breast cancer characteristics associated with digital versus film-screen mammography for screen-detected and interval cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:676–684.
24. Thurfjell E, Thurfjell MG, Lindgren A. Mammographic finding as predictor of survival in 1-9 mm invasive breast cancers. Worse prognosis for cases presenting as calcifications alone. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;67:177–180.
25. Ham M, Moon A. Inflammatory and microenvironmental factors involved in breast cancer progression. Arch Pharm Res. 2013;36:1419–1431.
26. Rose DP, Gracheck PJ, Vona-Davis L. The interactions of obesity, inflammation and insulin resistance in breast cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2015;7:2147–2168.
27. Tabar L, Gad A, Parsons WC, Neeland DB. Mammographic appearances of in situ carcinomas. In: Silverstein MJ, ed. Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1997:95–117.
28. Georgian-Smith D, Lawton TJ. Calcifications of lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: radiologic-pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:1255–1259.
29. Scoggins M, Krishnamurthy S, Santiago L, Yang W. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: clinical, radiological, and pathological correlation. Acad Radiol. 2013;20:463–470.
30. Carabias-Meseguer P, Zapardiel I, Cusido-Gimferrer M, et al. Influence of the in situ component in 389 infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas. Breast Cancer. 2013;20:213–217.
31. Dieterich M, Hartwig F, Stubert J, et al. Accompanying DCIS in breast cancer patients with invasive ductal carcinoma is predictive of improved local recurrence-free survival. Breast. 2014;23:346–351.
32. Abner AL, Connolly JL, Recht A, et al. The relation between the presence and extent of lobular carcinoma in situ and the risk of local recurrence for patients with infiltrating carcinoma of the breast treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer. 2000;88:1072–1077.
33. Ben-David MA, Kleer CG, Paramagul C, Griffith KA, Pierce LJ. Is lobular carcinoma in situ as a component of breast carcinoma a risk factor for local failure after breast-conserving therapy? Results of a matched pair analysis. Cancer. 2006;106:28–34.
34. Crombie N, Rampaul RS, Pinder SE, Elston CW, Robertson JF, Ellis IO. Extent of ductal carcinoma in situ within and surrounding invasive primary breast carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2001;88:1324–1329.
35. Kim JY, Han W, Moon HG, et al. Grade of ductal carcinoma in situ accompanying infiltrating ductal carcinoma as an independent prognostic factor. Clin Breast Cancer. 2013;13:385–391.
36. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology. 2006;239:385–391.