Journals / JAREM / 2021 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

Evaluation of the Appearance Characteristics of Suspicious Microcalcifications Detected by Ultrasonography

Ultrasonografi ile Saptanabilen Şüpheli Mikrokalsifikasyonların Görünüm Özelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Journal
JAREM
Pages
199–205
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Knowing the features of mammographic suspected MCs on USG will be helpful in daily radiology practice and biopsy planning.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To investigate the imaging properties of mammographically suspicious microcalcifications (MC) that can be detected by ultrasonography (USG).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Cases with suspected MC in categories 4 and 5 according to the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in screening mammography between June 2019 and January 2021 were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Knowing the features of mammographic suspected MCs on USG will be helpful in daily radiology practice and biopsy planning.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the imaging properties of mammographically suspicious microcalcifications (MC) that can be detected by ultrasonography (USG). Methods: Cases with suspected MC in categories 4 and 5 according to the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in screening mammography between June 2019 and January 2021 were included in the study. The patients were scanned with USG. USG guided core needle biopsy was performed for those whose MC area could be detected by USG and evaluated histopathologically. Mammographic features of MCs [morphological type (fine pleomorphic, amorphic, coarse heterogeneous, fine linear pleomorphic branching)], distribution (clustered, regional, segmental, diffuse, linear) and BI-RADS (4A, 4B, 4C, 5) category was determined. Other findings accompanying MC areas on mammography and USG were recorded. Results: The mean age of 43 patients included in the study was 45.27±8.58 (30-84). 48.8% (n=21) of the calcifications were fine pleomorphic, 30% (n=13) amorphous, 16% (n=7) coarse heterogeneous, 4.6% (n=2) fine pleomorphic branching type. While 70% (n=30) of the patients had asymmetrical density accompanying MCs on mammography, parenchymal distortion was found in 12% (n=5); on USG, hypoechoic area was found in 58% (n=25) of the patients, irregular ductal ectasia in 19% (n=8), parenchymal distortion in 9% (n=4), and 10% (n=4) microcyst cluster were accompanying pathologies. As a result of the histopathological evaluation, 42% of the patients had benign histopathology (n=18), 16% had ductal carcinoma in situ (n=7), and 42% (n=18) had invasive ductal cancer. Conclusion: In our study, the distinctive features of BI-RADS 4 and 5 MCs that can be followed by USG were evaluated. Although MCs that can be detected on USG are more likely to be malignant than benign ones, fine pleomorphic MC areas can be observed most frequently. Knowing the features of mammographic suspected MCs on USG will be helpful in daily radiology practice and biopsy planning.

Özet

Amaç: Ultrasonografi (USG) ile saptanabilen, mamografik açıdan şüpheli mikrokalsifikasyonların (MK) görüntüleme özelliklerini araştırmaktır. Yöntemler: Haziran 2019 ve Ocak 2021 tarihleri arasında tarama mamografisinde Meme Görüntüleme-Raporlama ve Veri Sistemi’ne (Breast Imaging- Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS) göre kategori 4 ve 5 şüpheli MK saptanan olgular çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastalar USG ile tarandı. MK alanı USG ile tespit edilebilenlere USG eşliğinde kalın iğne biyopsi uygulandı ve histopatolojik olarak değerlendirildi. MK’lerin mamografik özellikleri [morfolojik tipi (ince pleomorfik, amorf, kaba heterojen, ince lineer pleomorfik dallanan)], dağılımı (kümeleşen, bölgesel, segmental, diffüz, lineer) ve BI-RADS (4A,4B,4C,5) kategorisi belirlendi. Mamografi ve USG’de MK alanlarına eşlik eden diğer bulgular kaydedildi. Bulgular: Çalışmaya dahil edilen toplam 43 hastanın yaş ortalaması 45,27±8,58’di (30-84). Kalsifikasyonların %48,8‘i (n=21) ince pleomorfik, %30’u (n=13) amorf, %16’sı (n=7) kaba heterojen, %4,6’sı (n=2) ince pleomorfik dallanan tipteydi. Hastaların %70’inde (n=30) mamografide MK’lere eşlik eden asimetrik dansite, %12’sinde (n=5) parankimal distorsiyon saptanırken; USG’de hastaların %58’inde (n=25) hipoekoik alan, %19’unda (n=8) düzensiz duktal ektaziler, %9’unda (n=4) parankimal distorsiyon ve %10’unda (n=4) mikrokist kümesi eşlik eden patolojilerdi. Histopatolojik değerlendirme sonucu %42 hastada benign histopatoloji (n=18), %16’sında duktal karsinoma in situ (n=7), %42’sinde (n=18) invaziv duktal kanser idi. Sonuç: Çalışmamızda USG ile izlenebilen BI-RADS 4 ve 5 MK’lerin belirgin görünüm özellikleri değerlendirilmiştir. USG’de saptanabilen MK’lerin malign olma ihtimali benignlere göre daha yüksek olmakla birlikte en sık ince pleomorfik tipte MK alanları izlenebilmektedir. Mamografik şüpheli MK’lerin USG’deki görünüm özelliklerinin bilinmesi günlük radyoloji pratiğinde ve biyopsi planlamasında yardımcı olacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYADİBİ, Y., TEKCAN, D. E., UÇAR, N., YILDIRIM, E., ŞANLI, A. N. (2021). Evaluation of the Appearance Characteristics of Suspicious Microcalcifications Detected by Ultrasonography. JAREM, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 199–205. https://ajindex.com/articles/347752

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Dershaw DD, Abramson A, Kinne DW. Ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic findings and clinical implications. Radiology 1989; 170: 411-5
  2. Schnitt SJ, Silen W, Sadowsky NL, Connolly JL, Harris JR. Ductal carcinoma in situ (intraductal carcinoma) of the breast. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 898-903
  3. Stomper PC, Connolly JL, Meyer JE, Harris JR. Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1989; 172: 235-41
  4. Bent CK, Bassett LW, D’Orsi CJ, Sayre JW. The Positive predictive value of bı-rads microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 1378-83
  5. Craft M, Bicknell AM, Hazan GJ, Flegg KM. Microcalcifications detected as an abnormality on screening mammography: outcomes and followup over a five-year period. Int J Breast Cancer 2013; 2013: 458540
  6. Liu J, Huang L. Image-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in the diagnosis of breast microcalcifications. J Int Med Res 2018; 46: 2743-53
  7. Peng Y, Luo Z, Ni J, Cui H, Lu B, Xiang A, et al. Precision biopsy of breast microcalcifications: An improvement in surgical excision. Oncol Lett 2018 May 22 [cited 2020 Dec 21]; doi: 10.3892/ol.2018.8787 8. Gokhale S. Ultrasound characterization of breast masses. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2009; 19: 242-7
  8. Machado P, Eisenbrey JR, Stanczak M, Cavanaugh BC, Zorn LM, Forsberg F. Characterization of breast microcalcifications using a new ultrasound ımage-processing technique. J Ultrasound Med 2019; 38: 1733-8
  9. Moon WK, Im JG, Koh YH, Noh DY, Park IA. US of Mammographically Detected Clustered Microcalcifications. Radiology. 2000; 217: 849-54
  10. Relea A, Alonso JA, González M, Zornoza C, Bahamonde S, Viñuela BE, et al. Usefulness of the twinkling artifact on Doppler ultrasound for the detection of breast microcalcifications. Radiologia (Engl Ed) 2018; 60: 413-23
  11. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 941-8
  12. Wilkinson L, Thomas V, Sharma N. Microcalcification on mammography: approaches to interpretation and biopsy. Br J Radiol. 2016; 90: 20160594
  13. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL, Vo TT. Sonographically guided biopsy of suspicious microcalcifications of the breast: a pilot study. Am J Roentgenol2002; 178: 1007-15
  14. Yang WT, Suen M, Ahuja A, Metreweli C. In vivo demonstration of microcalcification in breast cancer using