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

Table 4

Distribution of the diameter of the mammographic lesion of calcifications and final outcome*.

Diameter of lesion of calcifications (mm)^†	Total; 𝑛=195^‡; (% of all lesions)	Benign outcome (𝑛=165)			Malignant outcome (𝑛=30)			Benign versus malignant§; 𝑃 value
		Benign; 𝑛=161	Atypical; 𝑛=4	Total benign§; 𝑛=165; (% of this diameter lesion)	In situ carcinoma 𝑛=14	Invasive carcinoma 𝑛=16	Total malignant§; 𝑛=30; (% of this diameter lesion)
0–5	89 (45.64)	81	1	82 (92.1)	7	0	7 (7.9)	<0.0001
6–10	49 (25.1)	40	2	42 (85.7)	4	3	7 (14.3)	<0.0001
11–20	26 (13.3)	18	1	19 (73.1)	1	6	7 (26.9)	0.0186
21–50	22 (11.3)	16	0	16 (72.7)	1	5	6 (27.3)	0.0330
>50	9 (4.6)	6	0	6 (66.7)	1	2	3 (33.3)	0.3173

∗Outcome determined at assessment which may include results of FNA, UCNB, VALCS, or open surgical biopsy or surgical treatment pathology whichever is the latter.
^†The diameter of the area containing calcification was measured on the nonmagnified mammogram demonstrating the largest diameter.
^‡Lesions without diameter recorded were excluded from data in this table.
§ 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.