Assessing the malignancy of suspicious breast microcalcifications: the role of contrast enhanced mammography

Catherine Depretto; Elisa D'Ascoli; Gianmarco Della Pepa; Giovanni Irmici; Claudia De Berardinis; Daniela Ballerini; Alice Bonanomi; Eleonora Ancona; Claudio Ferranti; Gianfranco Paride Scaperrotta

doi:10.1007/s11547-024-01813-y

Assessing the malignancy of suspicious breast microcalcifications: the role of contrast enhanced mammography

Radiol Med. 2024 Apr 12. doi: 10.1007/s11547-024-01813-y. Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

¹ Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori Di Milano, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
² Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori Di Milano, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy. elisadascoli@gmail.com.

PMID: 38607514
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-024-01813-y

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the role of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in predicting the malignancy of breast calcifications.

Material and methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with suspicious calcifications (BIRADS 4) who underwent CEM and stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) at our institution. We assessed the sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CEM in predicting malignancy of microcalcifications with a 95% confidence interval; we performed an overall analysis and a subgroup analysis stratified into group A-low risk (BIRADS 4a) and group B-medium/high risk (BIRADS 4b-4c). We then evaluated the correlation between enhancement and tumour proliferation index (Ki-67) for all malignant lesions.

Results: Data from 182 patients with 184 lesions were collected. Overall the SE of CEM in predicting the malignancy of microcalcifications was 0.70, SP was 0.85, the PPV was 0.82, the NPV was 0.76 and AUC was 0.78. SE in group A was 0.89, SP was 0.89, PPV was 0.57, NPV was 0.98 and AUC was 0.75. SE in group B was 0.68, SP was 0.80, PPV was 0.87, NPV was 0.57 and AUC was 0.75. Among malignant microcalcifications that showed enhancement (N = 52), 61.5% had Ki-67 ≥ 20% and 38.5% had low Ki-67 values. Among the lesions that did not show enhancement (N = 22), 90.9% had Ki-67 < 20% and 9.1% showed high Ki-67 values 20%.

Conclusions: The absence of enhancement can be used as an indicative parameter for the absence of disease in cases of low-suspicious microcalcifications, but not in intermediate-high suspicious ones for which biopsy remains mandatory and can be used to distinguish indolent lesions from more aggressive neoplasms, with consequent reduction of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Keywords: Contrast enhanced mammography; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Ki-67; Microcalcifications.