Breast Arterial Calcification on screening mammography can predict significant Coronary Artery Disease in women.

INTRODUCTION: Breast Arterial Calcification (BAC) on digital mammography has been associated with an increased risk of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD). We aimed to investigate the association of BAC with findings on Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) within a cohort of women from the national breast screening program. METHODS: Symptomatic women (chest pain) aged between 50 and 65 who underwent a CCTA and who also had a screening mammography between 2014 and 2015 were recorded. BAC and CAD-RADS™: Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System were scored by separate blinded specialist radiologists. Cardiac risk factors were recorded. Patients' cardiac follow up (with Exercise Stress Test, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or echocardiography) and cardio-protective medications were also documented. RESULTS: 219 eligible women underwent a CCTA. Of these, 104 patients also underwent digital mammography. Using standard linear regression BAC was identified as a significant predictor of CAD-RADs ≥3 disease. Using binomial logistic regression, BAC remained associated with CAD-RADs ≥3 (p=0.023). A significantly higher proportion of patients with BAC >1 were on cardio-protective medications (p=0.041) and had medications initiated or changed, or had further cardiac investigation (p=0.037 and p=0.019, respectively) than those with no BAC, after a mean follow-up of 20.6 (range 15-27) months. CONCLUSION: BAC diagnosed on 2 yearly screening mammography predicts CAD-RADs ≥3 disease in symptomatic patients.

Factors affecting successful breast conservation for ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Successful breast-conserving therapy in DCIS is restricted by high rates of residual disease resulting in the need for radiotherapy and/or re-excision. This study identifies patients with DCIS who are most at risk of compromised margins and of residual disease. METHODS: All patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery for DCIS over a 6-year period were included. Method of diagnosis, mammographic size, pathological size, DCIS-margin distance and residual disease on re-excision were analysed. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-five patients underwent initial breast-conserving surgery for DCIS. The compromised margin rate was 72%, and the rate of residual disease on re-operation was 54%. On univariate analysis, underestimation of pathological size by mammography by >1 cm occurred in 40% of those with compromised margins undergoing a therapeutic operation compared to only 14% of those with clear margins (P = 0.02). However, on multivariate analysis only pathological size (P < 0.0001, OR = 1.0,95% CI 1.037-1.128) and lack of a preoperative diagnosis by core biopsy (P < 0.0001, OR = 5.3,95% CI 1.859-15.08) were predictive of compromised margins. The presence of residual disease on re-excision was associated with increasing pathological size (P < 0.0001, OR = 1.085,95% CI 1.038-1.134) and decreasing DCIS-margin distance (P = 0.03, OR = 6.694,95% CI 1.84-37.855). Twenty-nine percent (n = 13/45) of lesions < or =3 cm compared to 84% (n = 27/32) of lesions >3 cm had residual disease on re-operation (P < 0.0001). Residual disease was present in 62% (n = 34/55), 64% (n = 7/11) and 17% (n = 2/12) of patients with DCIS-margin distances < or =1, 1-2 and 2-5 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Considerable underestimation of DCIS extent by mammography occurs in a high proportion of patients with compromised margins in breast conservation. Patients at particularly high risk of residual disease on re-excision are those with lesions >3 cm and those with DCIS-margin distances of < or = 2mm.