Clinical relevance of the combined analysis of circulating tumor cells and anti-tumor T-cell immunity in metastatic breast cancer patients.
T-cell receptor (TCR)
anti-tumor T-cells
circulating tumor cells (CTCs)
liquid biopsy
metastatic breast cancer (mbc)
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
01
07
2022
accepted:
28
07
2022
entrez:
9
9
2022
pubmed:
10
9
2022
medline:
10
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is a heterogeneous disease with varying responses to treatments and clinical outcomes, still requiring the identification of reliable predictive biomarkers. In this context, liquid biopsy has emerged as a powerful tool to assess in real-time the evolving landscape of cancer, which is both orchestrated by the metastatic process and immune-surveillance mechanisms. Thus, we investigated circulating tumor cells (CTCs) coupled with peripheral T-cell immunity to uncover their potential clinical relevance in mBC. A cohort of 20 mBC patients was evaluated, before and one month after starting therapy, through the following liquid biopsy approaches: CTCs enumerated by a metabolism-based assay, T-cell responses against tumor-associated antigens (TAA) characterized by interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot), and the T-cell receptor (TCR) repertoire investigated by a targeted next-generation sequencing technique. TCR repertoire features were characterized by the Morisita's overlap and the Productive Simpson Clonality indexes, and the TCR richness. Differences between groups were calculated by Fisher's, Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis test, as appropriate. Prognostic data analysis was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Stratifying patients for their prognostic level of 6 CTCs before therapy, TAA specific T-cell responses were detected only in patients with a low CTC level. By analyzing the TCR repertoire, the highest TCR clonality was observed in the case of CTCs under the cut-off and a positive ELISpot response (p=0.03). Whereas, at follow-up, patients showing a good clinical response coupled with a low number of CTCs were characterized by the most elevated TCR clonality (p<0.05). The detection of CTCs≥6 in at least one time-point was associated with a lower TCR clonality (p=0.02). Intriguingly, by combining overall survival analysis with TCR repertoire, we highlighted a potential prognostic role of the TCR clonality measured at follow-up (p=0.03). These data, whether validated in a larger cohort of patients, suggest that the combined analysis of CTCs and circulating anti-tumor T-cell immunity could represent a valuable immune-oncological biomarker for the liquid biopsy field. The clinical application of this promising tool could improve the management of mBC patients, especially in the setting of immunotherapy, a rising approach for BC treatment requiring reliable predictive biomarkers.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is a heterogeneous disease with varying responses to treatments and clinical outcomes, still requiring the identification of reliable predictive biomarkers. In this context, liquid biopsy has emerged as a powerful tool to assess in real-time the evolving landscape of cancer, which is both orchestrated by the metastatic process and immune-surveillance mechanisms. Thus, we investigated circulating tumor cells (CTCs) coupled with peripheral T-cell immunity to uncover their potential clinical relevance in mBC.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A cohort of 20 mBC patients was evaluated, before and one month after starting therapy, through the following liquid biopsy approaches: CTCs enumerated by a metabolism-based assay, T-cell responses against tumor-associated antigens (TAA) characterized by interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot), and the T-cell receptor (TCR) repertoire investigated by a targeted next-generation sequencing technique. TCR repertoire features were characterized by the Morisita's overlap and the Productive Simpson Clonality indexes, and the TCR richness. Differences between groups were calculated by Fisher's, Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis test, as appropriate. Prognostic data analysis was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Stratifying patients for their prognostic level of 6 CTCs before therapy, TAA specific T-cell responses were detected only in patients with a low CTC level. By analyzing the TCR repertoire, the highest TCR clonality was observed in the case of CTCs under the cut-off and a positive ELISpot response (p=0.03). Whereas, at follow-up, patients showing a good clinical response coupled with a low number of CTCs were characterized by the most elevated TCR clonality (p<0.05). The detection of CTCs≥6 in at least one time-point was associated with a lower TCR clonality (p=0.02). Intriguingly, by combining overall survival analysis with TCR repertoire, we highlighted a potential prognostic role of the TCR clonality measured at follow-up (p=0.03).
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
These data, whether validated in a larger cohort of patients, suggest that the combined analysis of CTCs and circulating anti-tumor T-cell immunity could represent a valuable immune-oncological biomarker for the liquid biopsy field. The clinical application of this promising tool could improve the management of mBC patients, especially in the setting of immunotherapy, a rising approach for BC treatment requiring reliable predictive biomarkers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36081561
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.983887
pmc: PMC9446887
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
983887Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Muraro, Del Ben, Turetta, Cesselli, Bulfoni, Zamarchi, Rossi, Spazzapan, Dolcetti, Steffan and Brisotto.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
FDB, MT own shares of a start-up company with exclusive license of the patent number ITRM20130700A1, 19 Dec 2013. Patent family ID 50073355 (Published as CN105849559A; CN105849559B; EP3084434A1; EP3084434B1; ES2673597T3; WO2015092726A1; ITRM20130700A1; JP2017502312A; JP6437009B2; US2017003306A1; US9958463B2). The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jul 22;13(15):
pubmed: 34359593
Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13(6):R117
pubmed: 22112244
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2018 Nov;67(11):1743-1752
pubmed: 30167861
J Immunother Cancer. 2022 Jan;10(1):
pubmed: 35086949
Int J Oncol. 2016 Aug;49(2):471-8
pubmed: 27278091
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Apr 19;12(4):
pubmed: 32325824
J Immunother Cancer. 2015 Jul 21;3:30
pubmed: 26199727
J Cancer. 2016 Jun 03;7(9):1095-104
pubmed: 27326253
BMC Biotechnol. 2017 Jul 10;17(1):61
pubmed: 28693542
BMC Cancer. 2018 Oct 1;18(1):938
pubmed: 30285668
Mol Oncol. 2015 Nov;9(9):1773-82
pubmed: 26093818
Cancer Discov. 2021 Apr;11(4):858-873
pubmed: 33811121
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1970 Oct;45(4):773-82
pubmed: 5513503
Int J Cancer. 2011 Jun 1;128(11):2527-35
pubmed: 21365651
Clin Breast Cancer. 2012 Aug;12(4):264-9
pubmed: 22591634
Blood. 2009 Nov 5;114(19):4099-107
pubmed: 19706884
Front Oncol. 2022 Apr 29;12:779786
pubmed: 35646659
Int J Cancer. 2002 Dec 10;102(5):499-506
pubmed: 12432553
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000 Aug;62(3):245-52
pubmed: 11072789
Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 May;29(5):2882-2894
pubmed: 35000083
Anticancer Res. 2013 May;33(5):2233-8
pubmed: 23645781
JCO Precis Oncol. 2022 Jan;6:e2100120
pubmed: 35025620
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020 Apr 23;6(1):30
pubmed: 32327646
Curr Opin Immunol. 2013 Oct;25(5):646-52
pubmed: 24140071
Nat Commun. 2013;4:2680
pubmed: 24157944
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Trends Cancer. 2015 Sep;1(1):44-52
pubmed: 28741562
JAMA Oncol. 2020 May 1;6(5):650-659
pubmed: 32215577
Oncotarget. 2014 Sep 30;5(18):8147-60
pubmed: 25230070
Ann Oncol. 2019 Sep 1;30(9):1448-1459
pubmed: 31228184
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Jun;31(6):539-44
pubmed: 23609047
J Transl Med. 2015 Jun 27;13:204
pubmed: 26116238
EBioMedicine. 2020 Feb;52:102631
pubmed: 31981982
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Jun 15;24(12):2851-2858
pubmed: 29581131
Oncotarget. 2021 Nov 23;12(24):2388-2403
pubmed: 34853660
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Jan 01;7(1):34-41
pubmed: 33151266
Lancet. 2018 Mar 17;391(10125):1023-1075
pubmed: 29395269
EClinicalMedicine. 2022 Jan 29;44:101282
pubmed: 35128368
Front Immunol. 2019 Jul 31;10:1767
pubmed: 31417550
Ann Oncol. 2017 Feb 1;28(2):208-217
pubmed: 27831505
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Mar;14(3):155-167
pubmed: 27644321
Clin Cancer Res. 2022 Jan 15;28(2):308-317
pubmed: 34667023
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19(1):40-50
pubmed: 29233559
Cancer Res. 2001 Aug 15;61(16):5964-8
pubmed: 11507035
Biomedicines. 2021 Sep 16;9(9):
pubmed: 34572427
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Jan 07;14(2):
pubmed: 35053449
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Feb 06;12(2):
pubmed: 32041353
Br J Cancer. 2022 Sep;127(5):800-810
pubmed: 35484215
Diagnostics (Basel). 2018 Aug 30;8(3):
pubmed: 30200242
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019 Feb;134:39-45
pubmed: 30771872
Front Immunol. 2022 Jan 27;13:807696
pubmed: 35154125
Int J Cancer. 2019 Sep 1;145(5):1423-1431
pubmed: 30664810
Mol Carcinog. 2020 Oct;59(10):1129-1139
pubmed: 32822091
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016 Apr;13(4):228-41
pubmed: 26667975
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Mar 31;14(7):
pubmed: 35406543
Oncoimmunology. 2012 Jul 1;1(4):432-440
pubmed: 22754761
Cancer Res. 2012 Jan 15;72(2):440-8
pubmed: 22127925