Immune microenvironment changes induced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancers: the MIMOSA-1 study.
Adult
Aged
Antigens, CD
/ metabolism
B7-H1 Antigen
/ metabolism
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ immunology
Female
Hepatitis A Virus Cellular Receptor 2
/ metabolism
Humans
Lymphocytes, Tumor-Infiltrating
/ metabolism
Middle Aged
Neoadjuvant Therapy
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Survival Analysis
Treatment Outcome
Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Tumor Microenvironment
/ drug effects
Young Adult
Lymphocyte Activation Gene 3 Protein
Immune checkpoint
Immune microenvironment
LAG-3
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
PD-L1
TILs
TIM-3
Triple-negative breast cancer
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes
Journal
Breast cancer research : BCR
ISSN: 1465-542X
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100927353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 05 2021
26 05 2021
Historique:
received:
22
01
2021
accepted:
12
05
2021
entrez:
27
5
2021
pubmed:
28
5
2021
medline:
1
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The immune microenvironment (IME) of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) and its modulation by neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) remain to be fully characterized. Our current study aims to evaluate NACT-induced IME changes and assess the prognostic value of specific immune biomarkers. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were identified from hematoxylin-eosin-stained sections of paired pre- and post-NACT tumor samples from a TNBC cohort (n = 66) and expression of PD-L1, TIM-3, and LAG-3 evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Overall TIL counts and PD-L1 expression did not differ pre- and post-NACT, but there was a response-specific statistically significant difference. TIL counts decreased in 65.5% of patients who achieved a pathological complete response (pCR) and increased in 56.8% of no-pCR patients (p = 0.0092). PD-L1 expression was significantly more frequently lost after NACT in pCR than in no-pCR patients (41.4% vs 16.2%, p = 0.0020). TIM-3 positivity (≥ 1%) was significantly more frequent after NACT (p < 0.0001) with increases in expression levels occurring more frequently in no-pCR than in pCR patients (51.4% vs 31%). LAG-3 expression significantly decreased after NACT, but there was no difference between response groups. Before NACT, a high TIL count (> 10%) was significantly associated with better overall survival (OS), p = 0.0112. After NACT, PD-L1 positivity and strong TIM-3 positivity (≥ 5%) were both associated with significantly worse OS (p = 0.0055 and p = 0.0274, respectively). Patients positive for both PD-L1 and TIM-3 had the worst prognosis (p = 0.0020), even when only considering patients who failed to achieve a pCR, p = 0.0479. NACT induces significant IME changes in TNBCs. PD-L1 and TIM-3 expression post-NACT may yield important prognostic information for TNBC patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The immune microenvironment (IME) of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) and its modulation by neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) remain to be fully characterized. Our current study aims to evaluate NACT-induced IME changes and assess the prognostic value of specific immune biomarkers.
METHODS
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were identified from hematoxylin-eosin-stained sections of paired pre- and post-NACT tumor samples from a TNBC cohort (n = 66) and expression of PD-L1, TIM-3, and LAG-3 evaluated by immunohistochemistry.
RESULTS
Overall TIL counts and PD-L1 expression did not differ pre- and post-NACT, but there was a response-specific statistically significant difference. TIL counts decreased in 65.5% of patients who achieved a pathological complete response (pCR) and increased in 56.8% of no-pCR patients (p = 0.0092). PD-L1 expression was significantly more frequently lost after NACT in pCR than in no-pCR patients (41.4% vs 16.2%, p = 0.0020). TIM-3 positivity (≥ 1%) was significantly more frequent after NACT (p < 0.0001) with increases in expression levels occurring more frequently in no-pCR than in pCR patients (51.4% vs 31%). LAG-3 expression significantly decreased after NACT, but there was no difference between response groups. Before NACT, a high TIL count (> 10%) was significantly associated with better overall survival (OS), p = 0.0112. After NACT, PD-L1 positivity and strong TIM-3 positivity (≥ 5%) were both associated with significantly worse OS (p = 0.0055 and p = 0.0274, respectively). Patients positive for both PD-L1 and TIM-3 had the worst prognosis (p = 0.0020), even when only considering patients who failed to achieve a pCR, p = 0.0479.
CONCLUSIONS
NACT induces significant IME changes in TNBCs. PD-L1 and TIM-3 expression post-NACT may yield important prognostic information for TNBC patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34039396
doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01437-4
pii: 10.1186/s13058-021-01437-4
pmc: PMC8157437
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antigens, CD
0
B7-H1 Antigen
0
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
CD274 protein, human
0
HAVCR2 protein, human
0
Hepatitis A Virus Cellular Receptor 2
0
Lymphocyte Activation Gene 3 Protein
0
Lag3 protein, human
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
61Références
Ann Diagn Pathol. 2019 Jun;40:143-151
pubmed: 31096176
J Transl Med. 2018 Apr 4;16(1):87
pubmed: 29615063
Ann Oncol. 2014 Mar;25(3):611-618
pubmed: 24401929
Oncoimmunology. 2018 Aug 23;7(11):e1502128
pubmed: 30377566
ESMO Open. 2017 May 2;2(2):e000150
pubmed: 28761741
Cancer Immunol Res. 2020 Jul;8(7):869-882
pubmed: 32295784
Lancet. 2020 Oct 10;396(10257):1090-1100
pubmed: 32966830
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;37(7):559-569
pubmed: 30650045
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 12;9(12):e115103
pubmed: 25501357
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19(1):40-50
pubmed: 29233559
Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Jun 1;26(11):2704-2710
pubmed: 31796517
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 1;376(22):2147-2159
pubmed: 28564564
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 27;382(9):810-821
pubmed: 32101663
Ann Oncol. 2019 Feb 1;30(2):236-242
pubmed: 30590484
World J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 10;7(5):387-394
pubmed: 27777881
Ann Oncol. 2015 Feb;26(2):259-71
pubmed: 25214542
Nat Med. 2014 Nov;20(11):1301-9
pubmed: 25344738
Cancer Treat Rev. 2016 Nov;50:205-207
pubmed: 27744144
Semin Cancer Biol. 2018 Oct;52(Pt 2):16-25
pubmed: 29024776
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Jun;45(6):963-968
pubmed: 30745134
Breast Cancer Res. 2017 Aug 7;19(1):91
pubmed: 28784153
Br J Cancer. 2018 May;118(10):1329-1336
pubmed: 29695766
Cancer Immunol Res. 2015 May;3(5):436-43
pubmed: 25941355
Cancer Immunol Res. 2015 Apr;3(4):326-32
pubmed: 25527356
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020 Jan;179(1):11-23
pubmed: 31529299
Eur J Cancer. 2020 Sep;136:7-15
pubmed: 32622323
Ann Oncol. 2017 Dec 1;28(12):2977-2984
pubmed: 29045526
Anticancer Res. 2020 Apr;40(4):1883-1890
pubmed: 32234876
Cancer Cell. 2018 Apr 9;33(4):581-598
pubmed: 29634946
Onco Targets Ther. 2018 Oct 16;11:7005-7009
pubmed: 30410357
Ann Oncol. 2019 Aug 1;30(8):1279-1288
pubmed: 31095287
Mol Cancer Ther. 2018 Jun;17(6):1324-1331
pubmed: 29588392
J Breast Cancer. 2018 Dec;21(4):406-414
pubmed: 30607162
Breast Cancer Res. 2016 Dec 3;18(1):121
pubmed: 27912781
Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Jun 15;26(12):2838-2848
pubmed: 32046998
Lancet. 2014 Jul 12;384(9938):164-72
pubmed: 24529560