Clinical Study

Microcalcifications Detected as an Abnormality on Screening Mammography: Outcomes and Followup over a Five-Year Period

Table 3

Distribution of revised breast imaging classification as a result of assessment, with final outcome*.

Revised breast imaging classification category Total of each imaging category
(%)
Benign outcomeMalignant outcome Benign versus malignant
value
Benign
(% of imaging category)
Atypical
(% of imaging category)
Total benign

(% of this imaging category)
In situ carcinoma
(% of imaging category)
Invasive carcinoma
(% of imaging category)
Total malignant

(% of this imaging category)

16 (2.6)6 (100)0 (0)6 (100)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0.0143
286 (36.6)86 (100)0 (0)86 (100)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0.0001
3110 (46.8)91 (82.7)5 (4.6)96 (87.3)11 (10)3 (2.7)14 (12.7)0.0001
423 (9.8)8 (34.8)1 (4.3)9 (39.1)7 (30.4)7 (30.4)14 (60.9)0.2971
510 (4.2)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)2 (20)8 (80)10 (100)0.0016

Outcome determined at assessment which may include results of FNA, UCNB, VALCS, or open surgical biopsy or surgical treatment pathology whichever is the latter.
Clients were assigned a new breast imaging classification at assessment following further mammographic views.
For statistical purposes, benign and atypical cases were grouped as “benign” and carcinoma in situ and invasive carcinoma were grouped as “malignant.” Chi-squared tests were conducted.