ArticleThe British journal of radiology2019
Breast microcalcifications: the UK RCR 5-point breast imaging system or BI-RADS; which is the better predictor of malignancy?
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of using artificial intelligence as a second reader in breast screening including arbitration.Nature cancer · 2026Article
- Malignancy Risk Stratification of Suspicious Breast Microcalcifications Detected on Mammograms Using Morphological and Distribution Characteristics Based on the Fifth Edition of BI-RADS.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2026Article
- Clinicopathological and prognostic value of calcification morphology descriptors in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Insights into imaging · 2023Review
- Clinical and pathological features analysis of invasive breast cancer with microcalcification.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Amorphous breast calcifications: is BI-RADS 4a appropriate?Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn the UK RCR 5-point breast imaging system (UKS), radiologists grade mammograms from 1 to 5 according to suspicion for malignancy, however unlike BI-RADS, no lexicon of descriptors is published. The aim of this study was to determine whether strict categorisation of microcalcifications (MCC) according to BI-RADS was a better predictor of malignancy than the UKS and whether these descriptors could be used within the UKS.
methodsA retrospective review of 241 cases, with MCC on mammography, who underwent biopsy was performed. Morphology, distribution, extent, UKS score, BI-RADS category and pathology were recorded. The positive predictive value (PPV) of each classification system for malignancy was calculated.
results28.6% were diagnosed with DCIS/IDC. The PPV for malignancy using the UKS was 18.9%, 69.4%, 100% for M3-5 respectively (
conclusionCombining morphology and distribution of MCC is accurate in malignancy prediction. Use of BI-RADS descriptors could help standardise reporting within the UKS and an algorithm using these within the UKS is proposed. Better prediction would enable more appropriate counselling and help to identify discrepancies. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: No guidance exists on scoring of suspicious MCC in the UK breast imaging system. Use of BI-RADS morphologic/distribution descriptors can aid malignancy prediction. Findings other than morphology of MCC are important in malignancy prediction. An algorithm for use by the UK radiologist when evaluating MCC is provided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.