Microcalcifications in benign breast biopsies: association with lesion type and risk.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-04 DOI:10.1007/s10549-024-07448-x
Sarah Schrup, Heather Hardway, Robert A Vierkant, Stacey J Winham, Matthew R Jensen, Bryan McCauley, Tanya Hoskin, Lisa Seymour, Denice Gehling, Jessica Fischer, Celine M Vachon, Santo Maimone, Laura Pacheco-Spann, Derek C Radisky, Jodi M Carter, Amy C Degnim, Mark E Sherman
{"title":"Microcalcifications in benign breast biopsies: association with lesion type and risk.","authors":"Sarah Schrup, Heather Hardway, Robert A Vierkant, Stacey J Winham, Matthew R Jensen, Bryan McCauley, Tanya Hoskin, Lisa Seymour, Denice Gehling, Jessica Fischer, Celine M Vachon, Santo Maimone, Laura Pacheco-Spann, Derek C Radisky, Jodi M Carter, Amy C Degnim, Mark E Sherman","doi":"10.1007/s10549-024-07448-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To characterize associations of microcalcifications (calcs) with benign breast disease lesion subtypes and assess whether tissue calcs affect risks of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer (IBC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed detailed histopathologic data for 4,819 BBD biopsies from a single institution cohort (2002-2013) followed for DCIS or IBC for a median of 7.4 years for cases (N = 338) and 11.2 years for controls. Natural language processing was used to identify biopsies containing calcs based on pathology reports. Univariable and multivariable regression models were applied to assess associations with BBD lesion type and age-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regressions were performed to model risk of IBC or DCIS stratified by the presence or absence of calcs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Calcs were identified in 2063 (42.8%) biopsies. Calcs were associated with older age at BBD diagnosis (56.2 versus 49.0 years; P < 0.001). Overall, the risk of developing IBC or DCIS did not differ significantly between patients with calcs (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.90, 1.41) as compared to patients without calcs. Stratification by BBD severity or subtype, age at BBD biopsy, outcomes of IBC versus DCIS, and mammography technique (screen-film versus full-field digital mammography) did not significantly alter association between calcs and risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our analysis of calcs in BBD biopsies did not find a significant association between calcs and risk of breast cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":9133,"journal":{"name":"Breast Cancer Research and Treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast Cancer Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-024-07448-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To characterize associations of microcalcifications (calcs) with benign breast disease lesion subtypes and assess whether tissue calcs affect risks of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer (IBC).

Methods: We analyzed detailed histopathologic data for 4,819 BBD biopsies from a single institution cohort (2002-2013) followed for DCIS or IBC for a median of 7.4 years for cases (N = 338) and 11.2 years for controls. Natural language processing was used to identify biopsies containing calcs based on pathology reports. Univariable and multivariable regression models were applied to assess associations with BBD lesion type and age-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regressions were performed to model risk of IBC or DCIS stratified by the presence or absence of calcs.

Results: Calcs were identified in 2063 (42.8%) biopsies. Calcs were associated with older age at BBD diagnosis (56.2 versus 49.0 years; P < 0.001). Overall, the risk of developing IBC or DCIS did not differ significantly between patients with calcs (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.90, 1.41) as compared to patients without calcs. Stratification by BBD severity or subtype, age at BBD biopsy, outcomes of IBC versus DCIS, and mammography technique (screen-film versus full-field digital mammography) did not significantly alter association between calcs and risk.

Conclusion: Our analysis of calcs in BBD biopsies did not find a significant association between calcs and risk of breast cancer.

良性乳腺活组织检查中的微钙化:与病变类型和风险的关系。
目的:描述微钙化(calcifications)与良性乳腺疾病病变亚型的关系,并评估组织钙化是否会影响导管原位癌(DCIS)和浸润性乳腺癌(IBC)的风险:我们分析了来自单个机构队列(2002-2013年)的4819例BBD活检的详细组织病理学数据,病例(N = 338)的DCIS或IBC随访中位数为7.4年,对照组为11.2年。根据病理报告,采用自然语言处理技术识别含有钙化物的活检样本。应用单变量和多变量回归模型评估与BBD病变类型的相关性,并进行年龄调整后的Cox比例危险回归,以根据是否存在钙化物对IBC或DCIS的风险进行分层建模:结果:在2063例(42.8%)活检中发现了钙化。钙化与BBD诊断年龄较大有关(56.2岁对49.0岁;P 结论:我们对BBD中的钙化进行了分析:我们对 BBD 活检组织中的钙化组织进行的分析并未发现钙化组织与乳腺癌风险之间存在显著关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
342
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment provides the surgeon, radiotherapist, medical oncologist, endocrinologist, epidemiologist, immunologist or cell biologist investigating problems in breast cancer a single forum for communication. The journal creates a "market place" for breast cancer topics which cuts across all the usual lines of disciplines, providing a site for presenting pertinent investigations, and for discussing critical questions relevant to the entire field. It seeks to develop a new focus and new perspectives for all those concerned with breast cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信