Clinicopathological and prognostic value of calcification morphology descriptors in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Insights into imaging Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 213 - 19
• Main Authors: van Leeuwen, Merle M., Doyle, Shannon, van den Belt–Dusebout, Alexandra W., van der Mierden, Stevie, Loo, Claudette E., Mann, Ritse M., Teuwen, Jonas, Wesseling, Jelle
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Vienna Springer Vienna 05.12.2023; Springer Nature B.V; SpringerOpen
• Subjects: Bias; Breast cancer; Calcification; Calcification morphology descriptors; Confidence intervals; Critical Review; Diagnostic Radiology; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Estrogens; Heterogeneity; Imaging; Imaging biomarker; Internal Medicine; Interventional Radiology; Mammography; Medical prognosis; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Morphology; Necrosis; Neuroradiology; Radiology; Standardization; Systematic review; Ultrasound; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Mammography; Imaging biomarker; Calcification morphology descriptors
• ISSN: 1869-4101; 1869-4101
• DOI: 10.1186/s13244-023-01529-z

Background Calcifications on mammography can be indicative of breast cancer, but the prognostic value of their appearance remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between mammographic calcification morphology descriptors (CMDs) and clinicopathological factors. Methods A comprehensive literature search in Medline via Ovid, Embase.com, and Web of Science was conducted for articles published between 2000 and January 2022 that assessed the relationship between CMDs and clinicopathological factors, excluding case reports and review articles. The risk of bias and overall quality of evidence were evaluated using the QUIPS tool and GRADE. A random-effects model was used to synthesize the extracted data. This systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results Among the 4715 articles reviewed, 29 met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 17 different clinicopathological factors in relation to CMDs. Heterogeneity between studies was present and the overall risk of bias was high, primarily due to small, inadequately described study populations. Meta-analysis demonstrated significant associations between fine linear calcifications and high-grade DCIS [pooled odds ratio (pOR), 4.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.64–9.17], (comedo)necrosis (pOR, 3.46; 95% CI, 1.29–9.30), (micro)invasion (pOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.03–2.27), and a negative association with estrogen receptor positivity (pOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12–0.89). Conclusions CMDs detected on mammography have prognostic value, but there is a high level of bias and variability between current studies. In order for CMDs to achieve clinical utility, standardization in reporting of CMDs is necessary. Critical relevance statement Mammographic calcification morphology descriptors (CMDs) have prognostic value, but in order for CMDs to achieve clinical utility, standardization in reporting of CMDs is necessary. Systematic review registration CRD42022341599 Key points • Mammographic calcifications can be indicative of breast cancer. • The prognostic value of mammographic calcifications is still unclear. • Specific mammographic calcification morphologies are related to lesion aggressiveness. • Variability between studies necessitates standardization in calcification evaluation to achieve clinical utility. Graphical Abstract