Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Breast Cancer | Research article

Mammographic density is a potential predictive marker of pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

Authors: Ida Skarping, Daniel Förnvik, Hanna Sartor, Uffe Heide-Jørgensen, Sophia Zackrisson, Signe Borgquist

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Our aim is to study if mammographic density (MD) prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a predictive factor in accomplishing a pathological complete response (pCR) in neoadjuvant-treated breast cancer patients.

Methods

Data on all neoadjuvant treated breast cancer patients in Southern Sweden (2005–2016) were retrospectively identified, with patient and tumor characteristics retrieved from their medical charts. Diagnostic mammograms were used to evaluate and score MD as categorized by breast composition with the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 5th edition. Logistic regression was used in complete cases to assess the odds ratios (OR) for pCR compared to BI-RADS categories (a vs b-d), adjusting for patient and pre-treatment tumor characteristics.

Results

A total of 302 patients were included in the study population, of which 57 (18.9%) patients accomplished pCR following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The number of patients in the BI-RADS category a, b, c, and d were separately 16, 120, 140, and 26, respectively. In comparison to patients with BI-RADS breast composition a, patients with denser breasts had a lower OR of accomplishing pCR: BI-RADS b 0.32 (95%CI 0.07–0.1.5), BI-RADS c 0.30 (95%CI 0.06–1.45), and BI-RADS d 0.06 (95%CI 0.01–0.56). These associations were measured with lower point estimates, but wider confidence interval, in premenopausal patients; OR of accomplishing pCR for BI-RADS d in comparison to BI-RADS a: 0.03 (95%CI 0.00–0.76).

Conclusions

The likelihood of accomplishing pCR is indicated to be lower in breast cancer patients with higher MD, which need to be analysed in future studies for improved clinical decision-making regarding neoadjuvant treatment.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227–36.PubMed
2.
Vacek PM, Geller B. A prospective study of breast cancer risk using routine mammographic breast density measurements. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2004;13(5):715–22.
3.
Sandberg ME, Li J, Hall P, et al. Change of mammographic density predicts the risk of contralateral breast cancer--a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(4):R57.PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Li J, Humphreys K, Eriksson L, et al. Mammographic density reduction is a prognostic marker of response to adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(18):2249–56.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Sickles E, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS® mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® atlas. - breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013.
6.
Sartor H, Lang K, Rosso A, et al. Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists' qualitative classification. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(12):4354–60.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, et al. Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(3):692–7.
8.
Eng A, Gallant Z, Shepherd J, et al. Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(5):439.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Wengert GJ, Helbich TH, Kapetas P, et al. Density and tailored breast cancer screening: practice and prediction - an overview. Acta Radiol Open. 2018;7(9):2058460118791212.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Spak DA, Plaxco JS, Santiago L, et al. BI-RADS((R)) fifth edition: a summary of changes. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017;98(3):179–90.PubMed
11.
Murphy BL, Day CN, Hoskin TL, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in breast Cancer is greatest in excellent responders: triple-negative and HER2+ subtypes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(8):2241–8.PubMed
12.
Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ. Preoperative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2007(2):CD005002.
13.
von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):1796–804.
14.
Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(28):4414–22.PubMed
15.
Huober J, von Minckwitz G, Denkert C, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy in different biological breast cancer phenotypes: overall results from the GeparTrio study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;124(1):133–40.PubMed
16.
Tao M, Chen S, Zhang X, Zhou Q. Ki-67 labeling index is a predictive marker for a pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(51):e9384.
17.
Elsamany S, Alzahrani A, Abozeed WN, et al. Mammographic breast density: predictive value for pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Breast. 2015;24(5):576–81.PubMed
18.
Amin MB, American Joint Committee on Cancer American Cancer Society (2017) AJCC cancer staging manual, 8th edition/editor-in-chief, Mahul B. Amin, MD, FCAP ; editors, Stephen B. Edge, MD, FACS and 16 others ; Donna M. Gress, RHIT, CTR - Technical editor ; Laura R. Meyer, CAPM - Managing editor. edn. Chicago IL: American Joint Committee on Cancer, Springer.
19.
20.
Vachon CM, Kuni CC, Anderson K, et al. Association of mammographically defined percent breast density with epidemiologic risk factors for breast cancer (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2000;11(7):653–62.PubMed
21.
Colleoni M, Viale G, Zahrieh D, et al. Chemotherapy is more effective in patients with breast cancer not expressing steroid hormone receptors: a study of preoperative treatment. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(19):6622–8.PubMed
22.
Fisher ER, Wang J, Bryant J, et al. Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer. 2002;95(4):681–95.PubMed
23.
Faneyte IF, Schrama JG, Peterse JL, et al. Breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: predictive markers and relation with outcome. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(3):406–12.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Ring AE, Smith IE, Ashley S, et al. Oestrogen receptor status, pathological complete response and prognosis in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(12):2012–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Guarneri V, Broglio K, Kau SW, et al. Prognostic value of pathologic complete response after primary chemotherapy in relation to hormone receptor status and other factors. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(7):1037–44.PubMed
26.
Sartor H, Borgquist S, Hartman L, et al. Do pathological parameters differ with regard to breast density and mode of detection in breast cancer? The Malmo diet and Cancer study. Breast. 2015;24(1):12–7.PubMed
27.
Aiello EJ, Buist DS, White E, et al. Association between mammographic breast density and breast cancer tumor characteristics. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2005;14(3):662–8.
28.
Ghosh K, Brandt KR, Sellers TA, et al. Association of mammographic density with the pathology of subsequent breast cancer among postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2008;17(4):872–9.
29.
Huo CW, Chew GL, Britt KL, et al. Mammographic density-a review on the current understanding of its association with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144(3):479–502.PubMed
30.
Boyd NF, Stone J, Martin LJ, et al. The association of breast mitogens with mammographic densities. Br J Cancer. 2002;87(8):876–82.PubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Lane RJ, Khin NY, Pavlakis N, et al. Challenges in chemotherapy delivery: comparison of standard chemotherapy delivery to locoregional vascular mass fluid transfer. Future Oncol. 2018;14(7):647–63.PubMed
32.
Cox TR, Erler JT. Remodeling and homeostasis of the extracellular matrix: implications for fibrotic diseases and cancer. Dis Model Mech. 2011;4(2):165–78.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Swartz MA, Fleury ME. Interstitial flow and its effects in soft tissues. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2007;9:229–56.PubMed
34.
Minchinton AI, Tannock IF. Drug penetration in solid tumours. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6(8):583–92.PubMed
35.
Junttila MR, de Sauvage FJ. Influence of tumour micro-environment heterogeneity on therapeutic response. Nature. 2013;501(7467):346–54.PubMed
36.
Boyd NF, Dite GS, Stone J, et al. Heritability of mammographic density, a risk factor for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(12):886–94.PubMed
37.
Ursin G, Lillie EO, Lee E, et al. The relative importance of genetics and environment on mammographic density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2009;18(1):102–12.
38.
Greendale GA, Reboussin BA, Sie A, et al. Effects of estrogen and estrogen-progestin on mammographic parenchymal density. Postmenopausal estrogen/progestin interventions (PEPI) investigators. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(4 Pt 1):262–9.PubMed
39.
Brand JS, Czene K, Eriksson L, et al. Influence of lifestyle factors on mammographic density in postmenopausal women. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e81876.PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Mitchell G, Antoniou AC, Warren R, et al. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Res. 2006;66(3):1866–72.PubMed
41.
Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Bronskill M, et al. Breast tissue composition and susceptibility to breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(16):1224–37.PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Elsamany S, Alzahrani A, Elkhalik SA, et al. Prognostic value of mammographic breast density in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Med Oncol. 2014;31(8):96.PubMed
43.
Banin Hirata BK, Oda JM, Losi Guembarovski R, et al. Molecular markers for breast cancer: prediction on tumor behavior. Dis Markers. 2014;2014:513158.PubMedPubMedCentral
44.
De Mattos-Arruda L, Shen R, Reis-Filho JS, et al. Translating neoadjuvant therapy into survival benefits: one size does not fit all. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(9):566–79.PubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Yaghjyan L, Colditz GA, Collins LC, et al. Mammographic breast density and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(15):1179–89.PubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Ziv E, Tice J, Smith-Bindman R, et al. Mammographic density and estrogen receptor status of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2004;13(12):2090–5.
47.
Ma H, Luo J, Press MF, Wang Y, et al. Is there a difference in the association between percent mammographic density and subtypes of breast cancer? Luminal a and triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2009;18(2):479–85.
48.
49.
Mazouni C, Peintinger F, Wan-Kau S, et al. Residual ductal carcinoma in situ in patients with complete eradication of invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect patient outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(19):2650–5.PubMed
50.
Jones RL, Lakhani SR, Ring AE, et al. Pathological complete response and residual DCIS following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2006;94(3):358–62.PubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Park CK, Jung WH, Koo JS. Pathologic evaluation of breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant therapy. J Pathol Transl Med. 2016;50(3):173–80.PubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Geller BM, Nelson HD, Weaver DL, et al. Characteristics associated with requests by pathologists for second opinions on breast biopsies. J Clin Pathol. 2017;70(11):947–53.PubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA, et al. Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. JAMA. 2015;313(11):1122–32.PubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Alunni JP. Imaging inflammatory breast cancer. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012;93(2):95–103.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Mammographic density is a potential predictive marker of pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer
Authors
Ida Skarping
Daniel Förnvik
Hanna Sartor
Uffe Heide-Jørgensen
Sophia Zackrisson
Signe Borgquist
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-6485-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Cancer 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

A pair-wise meta-analysis highlights circular RNAs as potential biomarkers for colorectal cancer

Research article

Epidemiological, clinical and pathological characteristics of gastric neoplasms in the province of Cremona: the experience of the first population-based specialized gastric cancer registry in Italy

Research article

Association between TIMP-2 gene polymorphism and breast cancer in Han Chinese women

Research article

The efficacy and toxicity of cabazitaxel for treatment of docetaxel-resistant prostate cancer correlating with the initial doses in Japanese patients

Research article

Role of delayed salvage bevacizumab at symptomatic progression of chemorefractory glioblastoma

Research article

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors to predict treatment response in high risk neuroblastoma patients receiving topotecan and cyclophosphamide containing induction regimen: a prospective multicenter study
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits