ArticleThe breast journal2021
Time to development and imaging features of new calcifications in the treated breast after breast-conserving therapy.
Article in The breast journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast Cancer with Brain-only Calcified Metastases.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Fat necrosis: A consultant's conundrum.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of our study was to analyze the time to development, malignancy rate, location, and mammographic features of new calcifications in the treated breast after breast-conserving therapy (BCT). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this HIPAA-complaint, IRB-approved retrospective study, we reviewed the records of patients treated with BCT at our institution with breast-conserving surgery performed between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. A total of 735 breasts in 732 women were included in our study cohort. Factors analyzed included rate of development of new calcifications, malignancy rate of new calcifications, the time between completion of radiation therapy and development of new calcifications, imaging features of new calcifications, and location of the new calcifications in relation to the primary malignancy.
resultsDuring follow-up, new calcifications developed in 155 of the 735 treated breasts (21.1%) and 155 of the 732 women (21.2%). After excluding two cases that were lost to follow-up, the malignancy rate of new calcifications was 5.2% (8/153; 95% CI: 2.3% to 10.0%). The median time to development of the benign calcifications was 27 months (range, 2 to 91 months) and of the malignant calcifications was 41 months (range, 11 to 57 months). Of the 20 (13.1%) cases of new calcifications categorized as BI-RADS 3 (probably benign), all were benign on follow-up (19 cases) or on biopsy (1 case). Of the 51 BI-RADS 4 (suspicious) cases, 8 (16%) were biopsy-proven malignant. The malignancy rate was the highest in fine pleomorphic 100% (1/1), followed by amorphous 17%, (5/29), coarse heterogeneous 8% (2/26) and typically benign 0 (0/97) calcifications (p < 0.0001). The malignancy rate was 1.5% (2/137) for new calcifications within the lumpectomy site vs. 37.5% (6/16) for new calcifications outside the lumpectomy site (p < 0.0001) and was 3.4% (5/147) for new calcifications at or within the same quadrant as the lumpectomy site vs. 50.0% (3/6) for new calcifications in a different quadrant from the lumpectomy site (p=0.002).
conclusionMost new calcifications that developed in the treated breast after BCT were benign. Evaluation of morphology and distribution of those calcifications is imperative. New calcifications in the treated breast outside the lumpectomy site are more likely to be malignant and should be viewed with greater suspicion. Benign calcifications developed earlier than malignant calcifications, but the time courses overlapped.
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.