Mustapha Abubakar1, Maeve Mullooly2, Sarah Nyante3, Ruth M Pfeiffer1, Erin J Aiello Bowles4, Renata Cora5, Clara Bodelon1, Eboneé Butler1, Donna Butcher6, Lawrence Sternberg6, Melissa A Troester7, Sheila Weinmann8, Mark Sherman9, Andrew G Glass8, Amy Berrington de Gonzalez1, Gretchen L Gierach1. 1. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 2. School of Population Health, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Independent Contractor, CT(ASCP), MB(ASCP), Stamford, CT, USA. 6. Molecular Histopathology Laboratory, Laboratory Animal Sciences Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD, USA. 7. Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 8. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA. 9. Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mammographic breast density (MBD) decline post-tamoxifen initiation is a favorable prognostic factor in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer (BC) and has potential utility as a biomarker of tamoxifen response. However, the prognostic value of MBD decline may vary by molecular characteristics among ER-positive patients. METHODS: We investigated associations between MBD decline (≥10% vs <10%) and breast cancer-specific mortality (BCSM) among ER-positive breast cancer patients aged 36-87 years at diagnosis treated with tamoxifen at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (1990-2008). Patients who died of BC (case patients; n = 62) were compared with those who did not (control patients; n = 215) overall and by tumor molecular characteristics (immunohistochemistry [IHC]-based subtype [luminal A-like: ER-positive/progesterone receptor [PR]-positive/HER2-negative/low Ki67; luminal B-like: ER-positive and 1 or more of PR-negative, HER2-positive, high Ki67] and modified IHC [mIHC]-based recurrence score of ER/PR/Ki67). Percent MBD was measured in the unaffected breast at baseline mammogram (mean = 6 months before tamoxifen initiation) and follow-up (mean = 12 months post-tamoxifen initiation). Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed from logistic regression models. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: MBD decline was statistically significantly associated with reduced risk of BCSM overall (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.92). This association was, however, stronger among women with aggressive tumor characteristics including luminal B-like (OR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.73) vs A-like (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.19 to 2.92); large (OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.78) vs small (OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.04 to 3.79) tumors; PR-negative (OR = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.37) vs PR-positive (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.18 to 1.40) disease; and high (OR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.93) vs low (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.10 to 2.09) mIHC3 score. CONCLUSION: The findings support MBD decline as a prognostic marker of tamoxifen response among patients with aggressive ER-positive BC phenotypes, for whom understanding treatment effectiveness is critical. Published by Oxford University Press 2022.
BACKGROUND: Mammographic breast density (MBD) decline post-tamoxifen initiation is a favorable prognostic factor in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer (BC) and has potential utility as a biomarker of tamoxifen response. However, the prognostic value of MBD decline may vary by molecular characteristics among ER-positive patients. METHODS: We investigated associations between MBD decline (≥10% vs <10%) and breast cancer-specific mortality (BCSM) among ER-positive breast cancer patients aged 36-87 years at diagnosis treated with tamoxifen at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (1990-2008). Patients who died of BC (case patients; n = 62) were compared with those who did not (control patients; n = 215) overall and by tumor molecular characteristics (immunohistochemistry [IHC]-based subtype [luminal A-like: ER-positive/progesterone receptor [PR]-positive/HER2-negative/low Ki67; luminal B-like: ER-positive and 1 or more of PR-negative, HER2-positive, high Ki67] and modified IHC [mIHC]-based recurrence score of ER/PR/Ki67). Percent MBD was measured in the unaffected breast at baseline mammogram (mean = 6 months before tamoxifen initiation) and follow-up (mean = 12 months post-tamoxifen initiation). Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed from logistic regression models. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: MBD decline was statistically significantly associated with reduced risk of BCSM overall (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.92). This association was, however, stronger among women with aggressive tumor characteristics including luminal B-like (OR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.73) vs A-like (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.19 to 2.92); large (OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.78) vs small (OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.04 to 3.79) tumors; PR-negative (OR = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.37) vs PR-positive (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.18 to 1.40) disease; and high (OR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.93) vs low (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.10 to 2.09) mIHC3 score. CONCLUSION: The findings support MBD decline as a prognostic marker of tamoxifen response among patients with aggressive ER-positive BC phenotypes, for whom understanding treatment effectiveness is critical. Published by Oxford University Press 2022.
Authors: Maeve Mullooly; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Sarah J Nyante; Brandy M Heckman-Stoddard; Marjorie Perloff; Ismail Jatoi; Louise A Brinton; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Robert N Hoover; Andrew Glass; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jingmei Li; Keith Humphreys; Louise Eriksson; Gustaf Edgren; Kamila Czene; Per Hall Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas E Rohan; Xiaonan Xue; Hung-Mo Lin; Timothy M D'Alfonso; Paula S Ginter; Maja H Oktay; Brian D Robinson; Mindy Ginsberg; Frank B Gertler; Andrew G Glass; Joseph A Sparano; John S Condeelis; Joan G Jones Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Mitch Dowsett; Silvia Pineda; Christopher Wale; Janine Salter; Emma Quinn; Lila Zabaglo; Elizabeth Mallon; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis; Anthony Howell; Aman U Buzdar; John F Forbes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Xiaohong Rose Yang; Mustapha Abubakar; Jing Zhang; Thomas U Ahearn; Hela Koka; Changyuan Guo; Scott M Lawrence; Karun Mutreja; Jonine D Figueroa; Jianming Ying; Jolanta Lissowska; Ning Lyu Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Michael S Shawky; Hilary Martin; Honor J Hugo; Thomas Lloyd; Kara L Britt; Andrew Redfern; Erik W Thompson Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-01-17
Authors: Mustapha Abubakar; Jonine Figueroa; H Raza Ali; Fiona Blows; Jolanta Lissowska; Carlos Caldas; Douglas F Easton; Mark E Sherman; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Mitch Dowsett; Paul D Pharoah Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Maeve Mullooly; Sarah J Nyante; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Renata Cora; Donna Butcher; Lawrence Sternberg; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Shaoqi Fan; Jonine D Figueroa; Sheila Weinmann; Robert N Hoover; Louise A Brinton; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Andrew Glass; Mark E Sherman; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: A Goldhirsch; E P Winer; A S Coates; R D Gelber; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-04 Impact factor: 32.976