What percentage of architectural distortions on mammography (mammogram) are malignant?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 9, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Malignancy Rate of Architectural Distortion on Mammography

Approximately 75% of architectural distortions classified as suspicious (BI-RADS 4-5) on mammography prove to be malignant, though this rate varies substantially based on detection context and imaging characteristics. 1

Overall Malignancy Rates

The positive predictive value for malignancy when architectural distortion is deemed suspicious enough to warrant biopsy is 74.5% based on a large 10-year retrospective study of 369 biopsied cases. 1 This represents architectural distortions classified as BI-RADS 4 (suspicious) or BI-RADS 5 (highly suggestive of malignancy). 2

It is critical to understand that this 75% malignancy rate applies only to architectural distortions already determined to be suspicious—not to all architectural distortions detected on mammography. 1 Many architectural distortions are clearly benign (BI-RADS 2) when related to prior surgery or other obvious benign causes. 2

Key Factors That Modify Malignancy Risk

Detection Context

  • Diagnostic mammography: Architectural distortion detected during diagnostic workup (typically for symptoms or callback from screening) has an 83.1% malignancy rate. 1

  • Screening mammography: Architectural distortion detected on routine screening has a 67.0% malignancy rate, significantly lower than diagnostic detection (p < 0.001). 1

Ultrasound Correlation

  • With ultrasound correlate: When architectural distortion has a corresponding finding on ultrasound, the malignancy rate is 82.9%. 1

  • Without ultrasound correlate: When no sonographic abnormality is identified at the site of architectural distortion, the malignancy rate drops dramatically to 27.9% (p < 0.001). 1

  • For DBT-detected architectural distortions with no ultrasound correlate showing benign pathology without atypia on core needle biopsy, the upgrade rate to malignancy is 0%, supporting imaging surveillance as an alternative to surgical excision. 3

Associated Imaging Features

  • Pure architectural distortion versus architectural distortion with calcifications or asymmetries: No statistically significant difference in malignancy rates (73.0% vs 78.8%, p = 0.26). 1

Pathologic Outcomes When Malignant

  • Invasive adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant diagnosis when architectural distortion proves to be cancer. 1

  • Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) alone accounts for only 4.1% of malignant architectural distortions, meaning the vast majority of malignant cases are invasive. 1

Pathologic Outcomes When Benign

  • Radial scar or complex sclerosing lesion is the most common benign finding, accounting for 7.3% of biopsied architectural distortions. 1

  • Radial scars without atypia at initial biopsy have an extremely low upgrade rate to malignancy at surgical excision of only 1.5% to DCIS and 0% to invasive cancer. 4

  • Other concordant benign pathologies without atypia have a similarly low upgrade rate of 4.3% to DCIS and 0% to invasive cancer. 4

Critical Clinical Pitfalls

  • Never dismiss architectural distortion without additional imaging evaluation. Spot compression views must be obtained to exclude summation artifact before providing reassurance. 5

  • Always perform targeted ultrasound even when mammographic findings seem straightforward, as the presence or absence of a sonographic correlate dramatically alters malignancy probability. 5, 1

  • Recognize that architectural distortion is a commonly missed sign of breast cancer and represents a frequent cause of false-negative screening mammograms, particularly in interval cancer cases. 6, 7

  • Do not rely on mammography alone for risk stratification, as ultrasound identifies additional lesions not visible on mammography in 63-69% of symptomatic cases. 5

References

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Guideline

Mammographic Asymmetry on CC View: Clinical Significance and Management

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Research

Detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms of interval-cancer cases with neural networks.

Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference, 2009

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.