Changes in breast density and circulating estrogens in postmenopausal women receiving adjuvant anastrozole

Factors associated with an increased risk of breast cancer include prior breast cancer, high circulating estrogens, and increased breast density. Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors are associated with a reduction in incidence of contralateral breast cancer. We conducted a prospective, single-arm, single-institution study to determine whether use of anastrozole is associated with changes in contralateral breast density and circulating estrogens. Eligible patients included postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer who had completed local therapy, had an intact contralateral breast, and were recommended an aromatase inhibitor as their only systemic therapy. Participants received anastrozole 1 mg daily for 12 months on study. We assessed contralateral breast density and serum estrogens at baseline, 6, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was change in contralateral percent breast density from baseline to 12 months. Secondary endpoints included change in serum estrone sulfate from baseline to 12 months. Fifty-four patients were accrued. At 12 months, compared with baseline, there was a nonstatistically significant reduction in breast density (mean change: -16%, 95% CI: -30 to 2, P = 0.08) and a significant reduction in estrone sulfate (mean change: -93%, 95% CI: -94 to -91, P < 0.001). Eighteen women achieved 20% or greater relative reduction in contralateral percent density at 12 months compared with baseline; however, no measured patient or disease characteristics distinguished these women from the overall population. Large trials are required to provide additional data on the relationship between aromatase inhibitors and breast density and, more importantly, whether observed changes in breast density correlate with meaningful disease-specific outcomes

Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis

"Background Pathological complete response has been proposed as a surrogate endpoint for prediction of long-term clinical benefit, such as disease-free survival, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). We had four key objectives: to establish the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS, to establish the definition of pathological complete response that correlates best with long-term outcome, to identify the breast cancer subtypes in which pathological complete response is best correlated with long-term outcome, and to assess whether an increase in frequency of pathological complete response between treatment groups predicts improved EFS and OS. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Medline for clinical trials of neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. To be eligible, studies had to meet three inclusion criteria: include at least 200 patients with primary breast cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery; have available data for pathological complete response, EFS, and OS; and have a median follow-up of at least 3 years. We compared the three most commonly used definitions of pathological complete response—ypT0 ypN0, ypT0/is ypN0, and ypT0/is—for their association with EFS and OS in a responder analysis. We assessed the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS in various subgroups. Finally, we did a trial-level analysis to assess whether pathological complete response could be used as a surrogate endpoint for EFS or OS. Findings We obtained data from 12 identified international trials and 11 955 patients were included in our responder analysis. Eradication of tumour from both breast and lymph nodes (ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0) was better associated with improved EFS (ypT0 ypN0: hazard ratio [HR] 0·44, 95% CI 0·39–0·51; ypT0/is ypN0: 0·48, 0·43–0·54) and OS (0·36, 0·30–0·44; 0·36, 0·31–0·42) than was tumour eradication from the breast alone (ypT0/is; EFS: HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·55–0·66; OS 0·51, 0·45–0·58). We used the ypT0/is ypN0 definition for all subsequent analyses. The association between pathological complete response and long-term outcomes was strongest in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (EFS: HR 0·24, 95% CI 0·18–0·33; OS: 0·16, 0·11–0·25) and in those with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative tumours who received trastuzumab (EFS: 0·15, 0·09–0·27; OS: 0·08, 0·03, 0·22). In the trial-level analysis, we recorded little association between increases in frequency of pathological complete response and EFS (R2=0·03, 95% CI 0·00–0·25) and OS (R2=0·24, 0·00–0·70). Interpretation Patients who attain pathological complete response defined as ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0 have improved survival. The prognostic value is greatest in aggressive tumour subtypes. Our pooled analysis could not validate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for improved EFS and OS. Funding US Food and Drug Administration.

In Reply

Author response to the letter of Basso et al

Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: NeoSTEEP.

PURPOSE: The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS: The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes-both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points-particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS: The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor-positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION: End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison