PURPOSE: Tamoxifen treatment is associated with a reduction in mammographic density and an improved survival. However, the extent to which change in mammographic density during adjuvant tamoxifen therapy can be used to measure response to treatment is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Overall, 974 postmenopausal patients with breast cancer who had both a baseline and a follow-up mammogram were eligible for analysis. On the basis of treatment information abstracted from medical records, 474 patients received tamoxifen treatment and 500 did not. Mammographic density was measured by using an automated thresholding method and expressed as absolute dense area. Change in mammographic density was calculated as percentage change from baseline. Survival analysis was performed by using delayed-entry Cox proportional hazards regression models, with death as a result of breast cancer as the end point. Analyses were adjusted for a range of patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: During a 15-year follow-up, 121 patients (12.4%) died from breast cancer. Women treated with tamoxifen who experienced a relative density reduction of more than 20% between baseline and first follow-up mammogram had a reduced risk of death as a result of breast cancer of 50% (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.93) compared with women with stable mammographic density. In the no-tamoxifen group, there was no statistically significant association between mammographic density change and survival. The survival advantage was not observed when absolute dense areas at baseline or follow-up were evaluated separately. CONCLUSION: A decrease in mammographic density after breast cancer diagnosis appears to serve as a prognostic marker for improved long-term survival in patients receiving adjuvant tamoxifen, and these data should be externally validated.
PURPOSE:Tamoxifen treatment is associated with a reduction in mammographic density and an improved survival. However, the extent to which change in mammographic density during adjuvant tamoxifen therapy can be used to measure response to treatment is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Overall, 974 postmenopausal patients with breast cancer who had both a baseline and a follow-up mammogram were eligible for analysis. On the basis of treatment information abstracted from medical records, 474 patients received tamoxifen treatment and 500 did not. Mammographic density was measured by using an automated thresholding method and expressed as absolute dense area. Change in mammographic density was calculated as percentage change from baseline. Survival analysis was performed by using delayed-entry Cox proportional hazards regression models, with death as a result of breast cancer as the end point. Analyses were adjusted for a range of patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: During a 15-year follow-up, 121 patients (12.4%) died from breast cancer. Women treated with tamoxifen who experienced a relative density reduction of more than 20% between baseline and first follow-up mammogram had a reduced risk of death as a result of breast cancer of 50% (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.93) compared with women with stable mammographic density. In the no-tamoxifen group, there was no statistically significant association between mammographic density change and survival. The survival advantage was not observed when absolute dense areas at baseline or follow-up were evaluated separately. CONCLUSION: A decrease in mammographic density after breast cancer diagnosis appears to serve as a prognostic marker for improved long-term survival in patients receiving adjuvant tamoxifen, and these data should be externally validated.
Authors: Anne McTiernan; Christopher F Martin; Jennifer D Peck; Aaron K Aragaki; Rowan T Chlebowski; Etta D Pisano; C Y Wang; Robert L Brunner; Karen C Johnson; JoAnn E Manson; Cora E Lewis; Jane M Kotchen; Barbara S Hulka Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-09-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Johanna M Rommens; Kelly Vogt; Vivian Lee; John L Hopper; Martin J Yaffe; Andrew D Paterson Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Jane Warwick; Elizabeth Pinney; Ruth M L Warren; Stephen W Duffy Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-04-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: L Nyström; L G Larsson; L E Rutqvist; A Lindgren; M Lindqvist; S Rydén; I Andersson; N Bjurstam; G Fagerberg; J Frisell Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 1995 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Ernest U Ekpo; Mark F McEntee; Mary Rickard; Patrick C Brennan; Jyotsna Kunduri; Delgermaa Demchig; Claudia Mello-Thoms Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Sarah J Nyante; Mark E Sherman; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Louise A Brinton; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Robert N Hoover; Andrew Glass; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-02-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Natalie J Engmann; Christopher G Scott; Matthew R Jensen; Lin Ma; Kathleen R Brandt; Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh; Serghei Malkov; Dana H Whaley; Carrie B Hruska; Fang Fang Wu; Stacey J Winham; Diana L Miglioretti; Aaron D Norman; John J Heine; John Shepherd; V Shane Pankratz; Celine M Vachon; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Michael S Shawky; Cecilia W Huo; Kara Britt; Erik W Thompson; Michael A Henderson; Andrew Redfern Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-06-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Rafael Alvarez; Elika Ridelman; Natalie Rizk; Morgan S White; Chuan Zhou; Heang-Ping Chan; Oliver A Varban; Mark A Helvie; Randy J Seeley Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Shereef Elsamany; Abdullah Alzahrani; Seham Abd Elkhalik; Omaima Elemam; Elham Rawah; Mian U Farooq; Musab H Almatrafi; Feras K Olayan Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Charlotte C Gard; Brian L Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Michael A Pinkert; Lonie R Salkowski; Patricia J Keely; Timothy J Hall; Walter F Block; Kevin W Eliceiri Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-22