Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35583138›Full record

ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2022

Mammographic Density Decline, Tamoxifen Response, and Prognosis by Molecular Characteristics of Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.

Mustapha Abubakar, Maeve Mullooly, Sarah Nyante, Ruth M Pfeiffer, Erin J Aiello Bowles, Renata Cora, Clara Bodelon, Eboneé Butler, Donna Butcher, Lawrence Sternberg and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 57% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Mustapha AbubakarDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3728-6535
Maeve MulloolySchool of Population Health, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-1388-6907
Sarah NyanteDepartment of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1770-5993
Ruth M PfeifferDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7791-2698
Erin J Aiello BowlesKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6287-7391
Renata CoraIndependent Contractor, CT(ASCP), MB(ASCP), Stamford, CT, USA.
Clara BodelonDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6578-2678
Eboneé ButlerDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4638-1190
Donna ButcherMolecular Histopathology Laboratory, Laboratory Animal Sciences Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD, USA.
Lawrence SternbergMolecular Histopathology Laboratory, Laboratory Animal Sciences Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD, USA.
Melissa A TroesterDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Sheila WeinmannCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA.
Mark ShermanMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Andrew G GlassCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA.
Amy Berrington de GonzalezDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7332-8387
Gretchen L GierachDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0165-5522
National Institutes of Health · USFrederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research · USKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IEWinnMed · US

Funding

Group Health Cancer Research Program Research Specialist AwardR50CA211115 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BOWLES, ERIN JANELLE AIELLO · 2017 to 2021
$919k
NCI NIH HHS R50 CA211115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMammographic 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsMBD 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.

conclusionThe 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.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsTamoxifenBreast DensityErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansKi-67 AntigenPrognosisReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesKi-67 AntigenReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneTamoxifen

Identifiers

PMID35583138
PMCPMC9070642
OpenAlexW4220982455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.