Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 1/2022

22.06.2021 | Breast

Mammographic features of benign breast lesions and risk of subsequent breast cancer in women attending breast cancer screening

verfasst von: Margarita Posso, Rodrigo Alcántara, Ivonne Vázquez, Laura Comerma, Marisa Baré, Javier Louro, M. Jesús Quintana, Marta Román, Rafael Marcos-Gragera, María Vernet-Tomas, Francina Saladie, Carmen Vidal, Xavier Bargalló, Lupe Peñalva, María Sala, Xavier Castells, on behalf of the BELE study group

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 1/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the mammographic features in women with benign breast disease (BBD) and the risk of subsequent breast cancer according to their mammographic findings.

Methods

We analyzed data from a Spanish cohort of women screened from 1995 to 2015 and followed up until December 2017 (median follow-up, 5.9 years). We included 10,650 women who had both histologically confirmed BBD and mammographic findings. We evaluated proliferative and nonproliferative BBD subtypes, and their mammographic features: architectural distortion, asymmetries, calcifications, masses, and multiple findings. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for breast cancer were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. We plotted the adjusted cumulative incidence curves.

Results

Calcifications were more frequent in proliferative disease with atypia (43.9%) than without atypia (36.8%) or nonproliferative disease (22.2%; p value < 0.05). Masses were more frequent in nonproliferative lesions (59.1%) than in proliferative lesions without atypia (35.1%) or with atypia (30.0%; p value < 0.05). Multiple findings and architectural distortion were more likely in proliferative disease (16.1% and 4.7%) than in nonproliferative disease (12.8% and 1.9%). Subsequent breast cancer occurred in 268 (2.5%) women. Compared with women who had masses, the highest risk of subsequent breast cancer was found in those with architectural distortions (aHR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.16–4.22), followed by those with multiple findings (aHR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.34–2.66), asymmetries (aHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.84–3.28), and calcifications (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.21–2.12).

Conclusion

BBD subtypes showed distinct mammographic findings. The risk of subsequent breast cancer was high in those who have shown architectural distortion, multiple findings, asymmetries, and calcifications than in women with masses.

Key Points

• The presence of mammographic findings in women attending breast cancer screening helps clinicians to assess women with benign breast disease (BBD).
• Calcifications were frequent in BBDs with atypia, which are the ones with a high breast cancer risk, while masses were common in low-risk BBDs.
• The excess risk of subsequent breast cancer in women with BBD was higher in those who showed architectural distortion compared to those with masses.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Castells X, Domingo L, Corominas JM et al (2015) Breast cancer risk after diagnosis by screening mammography of nonproliferative or proliferative benign breast disease: a study from a population-based screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149:237–244CrossRef Castells X, Domingo L, Corominas JM et al (2015) Breast cancer risk after diagnosis by screening mammography of nonproliferative or proliferative benign breast disease: a study from a population-based screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149:237–244CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH et al (2005) Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:229–237CrossRef Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH et al (2005) Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:229–237CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Canelo-Aybar C, Ferreira DS, Ballesteros M et al (2021) Benefits and harms of breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC). J Med Screen doi. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141321993866 Canelo-Aybar C, Ferreira DS, Ballesteros M et al (2021) Benefits and harms of breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC). J Med Screen doi. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0969141321993866​
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Dyrstad SW, Yan Y, Fowler AM, Colditz GA (2015) Breast cancer risk associated with benign breast disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149:569–575CrossRef Dyrstad SW, Yan Y, Fowler AM, Colditz GA (2015) Breast cancer risk associated with benign breast disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149:569–575CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, Dupont WD, Ghosh K (2015) Atypical hyperplasia of the breast--risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med 372:78–89CrossRef Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, Dupont WD, Ghosh K (2015) Atypical hyperplasia of the breast--risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med 372:78–89CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Castells X, Torá-Rocamora I, Posso M et al (2016) Risk of breast cancer in women with false-positive results according to mammographic features. Radiology 280:379–386CrossRef Castells X, Torá-Rocamora I, Posso M et al (2016) Risk of breast cancer in women with false-positive results according to mammographic features. Radiology 280:379–386CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Venkatesan A, Chu P, Kerlikowske K, Sickles EA, Smith-Bindman R (2009) Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables. Radiology 250:648–657CrossRef Venkatesan A, Chu P, Kerlikowske K, Sickles EA, Smith-Bindman R (2009) Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables. Radiology 250:648–657CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Baré M, Torà N, Salas D et al (2015) Mammographic and clinical characteristics of different phenotypes of screen-detected and interval breast cancers in a nationwide screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat 154:403–415CrossRef Baré M, Torà N, Salas D et al (2015) Mammographic and clinical characteristics of different phenotypes of screen-detected and interval breast cancers in a nationwide screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat 154:403–415CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Chopier J, Roedlich MN, Mathelin C (2015) Breast imaging of mass, architectural distortion and asymmetry: clinical practice guidelines. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 44:947–959CrossRef Chopier J, Roedlich MN, Mathelin C (2015) Breast imaging of mass, architectural distortion and asymmetry: clinical practice guidelines. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 44:947–959CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Whelehan P, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Vinnicombe SJ et al (2017) Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft tissue abnormalities: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol 72(1):95.e9–95.e15CrossRef Whelehan P, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Vinnicombe SJ et al (2017) Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft tissue abnormalities: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol 72(1):95.e9–95.e15CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Hacker A, Jansch A et al (2018) Use of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound vs. additional views and ultrasound for the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities: German multi-reader study. Acta Radiol 59(7):782–788CrossRef Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Hacker A, Jansch A et al (2018) Use of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound vs. additional views and ultrasound for the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities: German multi-reader study. Acta Radiol 59(7):782–788CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Lalji UC, Houben IP, Prevos R et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study. Eur Radiol 26(12):4371–4379CrossRef Lalji UC, Houben IP, Prevos R et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study. Eur Radiol 26(12):4371–4379CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system. 2013. American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system. 2013.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Dupont WD, Page DL (1985) Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med 312:146–151CrossRef Dupont WD, Page DL (1985) Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med 312:146–151CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J R Statist Soc B 34:187–220 Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J R Statist Soc B 34:187–220
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Dibble E, Laurenco A, Baird G, Ward R, Maynard A, Mainiero M (2018) Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion. Eur Radiol 28:3–10CrossRef Dibble E, Laurenco A, Baird G, Ward R, Maynard A, Mainiero M (2018) Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion. Eur Radiol 28:3–10CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Bahl M, Baker JA, Kinsey EN, Ghate SV (2015) Architectural distortion on mammography: correlation with pathologic outcomes and predictors of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1339–1345CrossRef Bahl M, Baker JA, Kinsey EN, Ghate SV (2015) Architectural distortion on mammography: correlation with pathologic outcomes and predictors of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1339–1345CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Thomas PS (2018) Diagnosis and management of high-risk breast lesions. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 16(11):1391–1396CrossRef Thomas PS (2018) Diagnosis and management of high-risk breast lesions. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 16(11):1391–1396CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Grimm LJ, Miller MM, Thomas SM et al (2019) Growth dynamics of mammographic calcifications: differentiating ductal carcinoma in situ from benign breast disease. Radiology 292:77–83CrossRef Grimm LJ, Miller MM, Thomas SM et al (2019) Growth dynamics of mammographic calcifications: differentiating ductal carcinoma in situ from benign breast disease. Radiology 292:77–83CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251(2):347–358CrossRef Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251(2):347–358CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat D'Orsi C (2010) Imaging for the diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010(41):214–217CrossRef D'Orsi C (2010) Imaging for the diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010(41):214–217CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Greenwood H, Kelil T, Lobach I, Fong V, Price ER (2021) Post-lumpectomy breast calcifications: can original tumor features assist in determining need for biopsy? Clin Imaging 20(75):16–21CrossRef Greenwood H, Kelil T, Lobach I, Fong V, Price ER (2021) Post-lumpectomy breast calcifications: can original tumor features assist in determining need for biopsy? Clin Imaging 20(75):16–21CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Salamat F, Niakan B, Keshtkar A, Rafiei E, Zendehdel M (2018) Subtypes of benign breast disease as a risk factor of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Iran J Med Sci 43(4):355–364 Salamat F, Niakan B, Keshtkar A, Rafiei E, Zendehdel M (2018) Subtypes of benign breast disease as a risk factor of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Iran J Med Sci 43(4):355–364
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH et al (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 218(2):497–502CrossRef Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH et al (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 218(2):497–502CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Eriksson M, Czene K, Pawitan Y et al (2017) A clinical model for identifying the short-term risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 19(1):29CrossRef Eriksson M, Czene K, Pawitan Y et al (2017) A clinical model for identifying the short-term risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 19(1):29CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Louro J, Román M, Posso M et al (2021) Developing and validating an individualized breast cancer risk prediction model for women attending breast cancer screening. PLoS One; 23 16(3):e0248930CrossRef Louro J, Román M, Posso M et al (2021) Developing and validating an individualized breast cancer risk prediction model for women attending breast cancer screening. PLoS One; 23 16(3):e0248930CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Peairs KS, Choi Y, Stewart RW, Sateia HF (2017) Screening for breast cancer. Semin Oncol 44(1):60–72CrossRef Peairs KS, Choi Y, Stewart RW, Sateia HF (2017) Screening for breast cancer. Semin Oncol 44(1):60–72CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Louro J, Posso M, Hilton Boon M et al (2019) A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models. Br J Cancer 121:76–85CrossRef Louro J, Posso M, Hilton Boon M et al (2019) A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models. Br J Cancer 121:76–85CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Mammographic features of benign breast lesions and risk of subsequent breast cancer in women attending breast cancer screening
verfasst von
Margarita Posso
Rodrigo Alcántara
Ivonne Vázquez
Laura Comerma
Marisa Baré
Javier Louro
M. Jesús Quintana
Marta Román
Rafael Marcos-Gragera
María Vernet-Tomas
Francina Saladie
Carmen Vidal
Xavier Bargalló
Lupe Peñalva
María Sala
Xavier Castells
on behalf of the BELE study group
Publikationsdatum
22.06.2021
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08118-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

European Radiology 1/2022 Zur Ausgabe

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

08.05.2024 Gesellschaft Nachrichten

In einer Leseranfrage in der Zeitschrift Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology möchte ein anonymer Dermatologe bzw. eine anonyme Dermatologin wissen, ob er oder sie einen Patienten behandeln muss, der eine rassistische Tätowierung trägt.

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

07.05.2024 Klinik aktuell Nachrichten

Extreme Arbeitsverdichtung und kaum Supervision: Dr. Andrea Martini, Sprecherin des Bündnisses Junge Ärztinnen und Ärzte (BJÄ) über den Frust des ärztlichen Nachwuchses und die Vorteile des Rucksack-Modells.

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

IT für Ärzte Nachrichten

Darauf haben viele Praxen gewartet: Das Zi hat eine Liste von Praxisverwaltungssystemen veröffentlicht, die von Nutzern positiv bewertet werden. Eine gute Grundlage für wechselwillige Ärztinnen und Psychotherapeuten.

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

28.04.2024 Schwindel Nachrichten

Akuter Schwindel stellt oft eine diagnostische Herausforderung dar. Wie nützlich dabei eine MRT ist, hat eine Studie aus Finnland untersucht. Immerhin einer von sechs Patienten wurde mit akutem ischämischem Schlaganfall diagnostiziert.

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.