Abstract P2-09-03: Mammographic Density Response to Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy

Abstract

Abstract Background: Mammographic density, the variation in fat, epithelial and stromal tissues seen on screening mammography, is a strong risk factor for breast cancer and can be modified by hormonal agents. Changes in density from tamoxifen or postmenopausal hormone (PMH) use are associated with risk, suggesting that density may be a surrogate marker of therapeutic efficacy. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are given as adjuvant therapy in hormone receptor positive postmenopausal breast cancer and are known to decrease levels of estrone and estradiol in both serum and breast tissue. Our goal here was to examine the influence of AIs on mammographic density in women with early breast cancer. Methods: We conducted a case-control study of postmenopausal breast cancer patients initiating adjuvant AI therapy (anastrozole or exemestane) on protocols NCIC CTG MA27, NCCTG N063I and MC (Mayo Clinic) 0532. Eligibility included; an intact contralateral breast with no prior surgery; a screening mammogram within twelve months before AI initiation and at 9-15 months on therapy; no prior endocrine therapy and informed consent. Controls were sampled from the Mayo Mammography Health Study, a cohort of 19,924 receiving screening mammography at the Mayo Clinic, and matched to cases on age, prior PMH use, baseline body mass index (BMI) and interval between mammograms. Pre-treatment and on-study mammograms for cases (corresponding mammograms for controls) were digitized. Change in percent density was estimated on the craniocaudal view of the non-cancerous breast using two methods: a subjective assessment of change by an expert radiologist (within 5%; 5-10% increase, 10-25% increase, 25%+ increase, 5-10% decrease, 10-25% decrease and 25%+ decrease) and a quantitative assessment of absolute change using a computer-assisted thresholding program (Cumulus). Analyses compared magnitude of change in density by both the subjective and quantitative methods between cases and matched controls. Results: 574 pairs were eligible for analyses (MA27-505 cases; N063I-12 cases; MC0532-57 cases). Characteristics of the two groups are shown in the table below. Using either density estimation method, there was a greater decrease in density among women on AI therapy vs. matched controls. In 33% (95% CI: 29-37%) of pairs, there was at least a one greater category decrease for the case relative to her control by subjective estimation. In 14% (95% CI: 11-18%) of the pairs, there was at least a 5% greater decrease for the case relative to her control by quantitative estimation. Data will be available according to AI class (non-steroidal versus steroidal) in November. Conclusions: In the largest report to date to examine the influence of AI therapy on mammographic density, we provide evidence that AI is associated with decreases in density in a small subgroup of women. We are currently examining factors that influence these AI-associated decreases in density and whether these differences are unique to one class of AI. (Supported in part by NIH grants P50CA116201, U01GM61388, U10CA77202, U10CA25224) Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-09-03.