A modern view on potential directions in the research of breast microcalcifications

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18370/2309-4117.2025.79.57-64

Keywords:

full-field digital mammography, microcalcifications, calcifications, breast cancer, breast density, ultrasound diagnostics

Abstract

Background. The majority of breast calcifications are not dangerous and represents benign changes in the breast that do not require further follow-up
and additional examinations. However, in a third of cases with suspicious microcalcifications (МС), oncopathology can be diagnosed after verification. The morphological type of calcifications and their distribution are determined by benign and malignant pathologies. Factors such as age, hormonal background, and density of the breast parenchyma play an important role in the appearance of certain breast findings and pathologies.
Objective of the study: to analyze the prospects of possible directions of research into suspicious MC of the breast and factors contributing to their formation. Materials and methods. An analysis of radiological and pathomorphological studies was carried out in 129 women with suspicious MC, aged from 31 to 85 years, with an average age of 49.0 years. Sampling was performed under ultrasound and X-ray guidance, depending on the ability to visualize the suspicious area with MC.
Results. The vast majority of the 129 women were young and middle-aged (according to the WHO classification, 2017) – 49 (37.98%) and 63 (48.84%) patients, respectively. 92 (71.32%) women had dense breasts, and 37 (28.68%) women had non-dense breasts. According to the localization of MC in the breast, there was a significant predominance in the upper-outer quadrant, where 85 (65.89%) cases of suspicious MC were visualized. The upper-outer quadrant prevailed in all age groups: young age – 38 (77.58%) cases, middle age – 38 (60.32%) cases, elderly and senior – 9 (52.94%). The most common types of MC grouping were grouped in 88 (68.22%) cases, and segmental – 26 (20.16%) cases. For all age groups, grouped calcifications had the most common presentation: young age – 31 (63.27%) cases, middle age – 44 (69.84%) cases, elderly and senior – 13 (76.47%) cases. Segmental and grouped types of suspicious MC are most characteristic in dense breast – 19 (20.65%) and 65 (70.65%) cases, respectively. Pleomorphic MC were the most common type of calcifications among all age groups: young age – 35 (71.43%) cases, middle age – 44 (69.84%) cases, elderly and senior – 11 (64.71%) cases. There was a predominance of punctate and pleomorphic types of suspicious MC for dense breast – 17 (18.48%) and 65 (70.65%) cases, respectively. Of the 129 suspicious findings, malignant pathology was diagnosed in 36 (27.9%) cases, and 93 (72.1%) cases were associated with benign findings.
Conclusions. It is advisable to conduct studies that could assess the presence of a statistically significant effect on the manifestation of the morphological type of suspicious MC and their type of grouping depending on the density of the breast parenchyma, localization in the breast and the age of the patients. Additionally, it is necessary to assess the effect of breast density on the frequency of the appearance of suspicious MC and the increase in the risk of breast cancer.

Author Biographies

A.Y. Kovtun, Medical Center “Verum Expert Clinic”; Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine, Kyiv

radiologist;
postgraduate student, Radiology Department

T.M. Kozarenko, Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine, Kyiv

PhD, professor, head of the Radiology Department

A.V. Gurando, Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine, Kyiv

PhD, assistant, Radiology Department

V.V. Telnyi, Medical Center “Verum Expert Clinic”, Kyiv

radiologist

References

  1. Fedorenko ZP, Sumkina OV, Gorokh EL, et al. Cancer in Ukraine, 2023–2024. Incidence, mortality, indicators of oncological service activity. Bulletin of the National Cancer Registry of Ukraine 26 [Internet]. Kyiv: National Cancer Institute, 2025. Available from: http://www.ncru.inf.ua/publications/BULL_26/PDF/Bull_26.pdf.
  2. Breast Cancer [Internet]. World Health Organization, 13 March 2024. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer.
  3. Arnold M, Morgan E, Rumgay H, et al. Current and future burden of breast cancer: Global statistics for 2020 and 2040. Breast. 2022 Dec;66:15–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.08.010.
  4. Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology; 2013. 134–6 p.
  5. Berg WA, Leung JWT. Diagnostic Imaging: Breast, 3rd Edition. Philadelphia, PA, Elsevier; 2019. 246–390 p.
  6. Logullo AF, Prigenzi KCK, Nimir CCBA, et al. Breast microcalcifications: Past, present and future (Review). Mol Clin Oncol. 2022 Apr;16(4):81. DOI: 10.3892/mco.2022.2514.
  7. Tot T, Gere M, Hofmeyer S, et al. The clinical value of detecting microcalcifications on a mammogram. Seminars in Cancer Biology. 2021;72:165–174. DOI: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.10.024
  8. Luiten JD, Voogd AC, Luiten EJT, et al. Recall and Outcome of Screen-detected Microcalcifications during 2 Decades of Mammography Screening in the Netherlands National Breast Screening Program. Radiology. 2020 Mar;294(3):528–37. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020191266.
  9. Aase H, Danielsen A, Hoff S, et al. Mammographic features and screening outcome in a randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. European Journal of Radiology. 2021;141: 109753. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109753
  10. Nyante SJ, Lee SS, Benefield TS, et al. The association between mammographic calcifications and breast cancer prognostic factors in a population-based registry cohort. Cancer. 2017 Jan 1;123(2):219–27. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30281.
  11. Mansson E, Bergkvist L, Christenson G, et al. 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 Dec 15;100(8):670–4. DOI: 10.1002/jso.21405.
  12. Bansal GJ, Emanuel L, Kanagasabai S. Malignancy risk of indeterminate mammographic calcification in symptomatic breast clinics. Postgrad Med J. 2023 May 19;99(1169):153–8. DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2021-140835.
  13. Oligane HC, Berg WA, Bandos AI, et al. Grouped Amorphous Calcifications at Mammography: Frequently Atypical but Rarely Associated with Aggressive Malignancy. Radiology. 2018 Sep;288(3):671–9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018172406.
  14. Kim SY, Kim HY, Kim EK, et al. Evaluation of malignancy risk stratification of microcalcifications detected on mammography: a study based on the 5th edition of BI-RADS. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Sep;22(9):2895–901. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-4362-6.
  15. Choi WJ, Han K, Shin HJ, et al. Calcifications with suspicious morphology at mammography: should they all be considered with the same clinical significance? Eur Radiol. 2021 Apr;31(4):2529-2538. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07215-8
  16. Lian J, Li K. A Review of Breast Density Implications and Breast Cancer Screening. Clin Breast Cancer. 2020 Aug;20(4):283–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2020.03.004.
  17. Berg WA, Seitzman RL, Pushkin J. Implementing the National Dense Breast Reporting Standard, Expanding Supplemental Screening Using Current Guidelines, and the Proposed Find It Early Act. J Breast Imaging. 2023 Nov 30;5(6):712–23. DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbad034.
  18. Kim S, Tran TXM, Song H, et al. Microcalcifications, mammographic breast density, and risk of breast cancer: a cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. 2022;24:96. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-022-01594-0
  19. Fushimi A, Fukushima N, Suzuki T, et al. Features of Microcalcifications on Screening Mammography in Young Women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018 Dec 25;19(12):3591–96. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2018.19.12.3591.
  20. Kerlikowske K, Abraham L, Sprague BL, et al. Mammographic calcifications association with risk of advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2025 Aug;212(3):555–67. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-025-07753-z
  21. Iribarren C, Chandra M, Lee C, et al. Breast arterial calcification: a novel cardiovascular risk enhancer among postmenopausal women. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging, 2022, 15.3: e013526. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.121.013526
  22. Hendriks EJ, de Jong PA, van der Graaf Y, et al. Breast arterial calcifications: a systematic review and meta-analysis of their determinants and their association with cardiovascular events. Atherosclerosis. 2015 Mar;239(1):11–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2014.12.035.
  23. Brennan ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology. 2011 Jul;260(1):119–28. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11102368.
  24. Tsunoda H, Moon WK. Beyond BI-RADS: Nonmass Abnormalities on Breast Ultrasound. Korean J Radiol. 2024 Feb;25(2):134–45. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2023.0769.
  25. Lee H, Kim SH, Kang BJ, et al. Clinical Utility of MicroPure US Imaging for Breast Microcalcifications. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2022 Jul;83(4):876–86. DOI: 10.3348/jksr.2021.0082.
  26. Wolterink FK, Mumin NA, Appelman L, et al. Diagnostic performance of 3D automated breast ultrasound (3D-ABUS) in a clinical screening setting-a retrospective study. Eur Radiol. 2024 Aug;34(8):5451–60. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10568-5.
  27. van Zelst JCM, Mann RM. Automated Three-dimensional Breast US for Screening: Technique, Artifacts, and Lesion Characterization. Radiographics. 2018 May-Jun;38(3):663–83. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2018170162.

Downloads

Published

2025-09-18

How to Cite

Kovtun, A., Kozarenko, T., Gurando, A., & Telnyi, V. (2025). A modern view on potential directions in the research of breast microcalcifications. REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY, (79), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.18370/2309-4117.2025.79.57-64

Issue

No. 79 (2025)

Section

Mammology

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.