| Literature DB >> 26459255 |
X Yu1,2, Z Zhang3,4,5, Z Wang1, P Wu1, F Qiu1,2, J Huang1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common invasive cancer to affect women in the world. Studies showed tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes can exhibit both beneficial and harmful effects on the biology and clinical outcome of breast cancer, the conclusion still remains incomplete. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and breast cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; Clinicopathological features; Prognosis; Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26459255 PMCID: PMC4823351 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-015-1391-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Transl Oncol ISSN: 1699-048X Impact factor: 3.405
Characteristics of the included studies
| Source | Year | Type of lymphocytes | Country | Number of participant | Duration of follow-up (months) | Clinicopathologic characteristic | Short-term prognosis | Long-term prognosis | Quality score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makiko Ono [ | 2012 | Total types | Japan | 180 | 64.8 | HR, HER-2 | pCR | DFS | 7 |
| Sherene Loi [ | 2013 | Total types | Hungary | 2009 | 96 | – | – | OS, DFS | 5 |
| S. Loi [ | 2014 | Total types | Australia | 1010 | – | G, HR, HER-2 | – | – | 4 |
| M. V. Dieci [ | 2014 | Total types | France | 278 | 76 | G, T, N | – | OS, MFS | 8 |
| Rin Yamaguchi [ | 2011 | Total types | Japan | 68 | – | – | pCR | – | 6 |
| Carsten Denkert [ | 2010 | Total types | Germany | 1058 | – | – | pCR | – | 7 |
| Sylvia Adams [ | 2014 | Total types | USA | 705 | 127 | – | – | OS, DFS | 7 |
| Hee Jin Lee [ | 2013 | Total types | Korea | 175 | – | – | pCR | – | 6 |
| Nathan R. West [ | 2011 | Total types | Canada | 113 | – | – | pCR | – | 6 |
| S. Muenst [ | 2013 | PD-1+ | USA | 660 | 65 | G, T, N, HR, HER-2, Ki67 | – | OS | 7 |
| Shenyou Sun [ | 2013 | PD-1+, Foxp3+ | China | 208 | 72 | G, T, N, HR, HER-2 | – | OS, DFS | 7 |
| Chunling Ma [ | 2012 | CD8+, Foxp3+, γδT | China | 81 | 60 | T, N, HR, HER-2 | – | OS, DFS | 6 |
| A. N. Seo [ | 2013 | CD8+, Foxp3+ | Korea | 153 | – | G, HR, HER-2, Ki67 | – | – | 5 |
| Sahar M. A. Mahmoud [ | 2010 | Foxp3+ | UK | 1445 | 180 | T, N, HR, HER-2 | – | CSS | 6 |
| Rafal Matkowski [ | 2009 | CD8+ | Poland | 88 | 39 | – | – | OS, DFS | 5 |
| Shuzhen Liu [ | 2012 | CD8+ | Canada | 3403 | 65 | G, T, N, HR, HER-2 | – | CSS | 6 |
| Sahar M. A. Mahmoud [ | 2011 | CD8+ | Egypt | 1334 | 127 | G, HR, HER-2 | – | CSS | 6 |
OS overall survival, DFS disease-free survival, CSS cancer-specific survival, MFS metastasis-free survival, pCR pathologic complete response, HER-2 human epidermal growth factor receptor-2, Ki67 proliferating antigen Ki67, PD-1 programmed death 1, G tumor grade, T tumor category, N lymph node category, HR hormone receptor, including progesterone and estrogen receptor
Fig. 1Flowchart of the selection of studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis
Association between TILs and breast cancer clinicopathological feature
| Subtype of TILs | Tumor grade (G1–2 vs. G3) | Tumor size (T1 vs. T2–4) | Lymph node status (+ vs. −) | Hormone receptor (+ vs. −) | HER-2 (+ vs. −) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR (95 % CI) |
|
| RR (95 % CI) |
|
| RR (95 % CI) |
|
| RR (95 % CI) |
|
| RR (95 % CI) |
|
| |
| Total TILs | 0.93 (0.77, 1.13) | 0 | 0.46 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.48 (0.07, 3.23) | 96 | 0.45 | 0.83 (0.61, 1.12) | 0 | 0.22 |
| PD-1+ TILs | 0.63 (0.54, 0.73) | 0 | <0.00001 | 0.72 (0.62, 0.82) | 0 | <0.00001 | 1.76 (1.50, 2.07) | 0 | <0.00001 | 0.75 (0.66, 0.84) | 0 | <0.00001 | 1.53 (1.08, 2.16) | 9 | 0.02 |
| Foxp3+ TILs | 0.60 (0.53, 0.68) | 46 | <0.00001 | 0.86 (0.71, 1.03) | 47 | 0.11 | 1.31 (0.94, 1.81) | 65 | 0.11 | 0.81 (0.72, 0.91) | 56 | 0.0004 | 1.95 (1.09, 3.46) | 71 | 0.02 |
| CD8+ TILs | 0.97 (0.73, 1.28) | 92 | 0.81 | 0.97 (0.76, 1.24) | 38 | 0.83 | 0.75 (0.33, 169) | 91 | 0.48 | 0.92 (0.84, 1.00) | 55 | 0.06 | 1.30 (1.12, 1.51) | 0 | 0.0006 |
Fig. 2The forest plot of RRs was assessed for association between TILs and breast cancer short-term outcome (neoadjuvant chemotherapy pCR rate). a TILs and breast cancer, b TILs and hormone receptor (+) breast cancer, c TILs and hormone receptor (−) breast cancer, d TILs and HER-2 (+) breast cancer, e TILs and HER-2 (−) breast cancer
Fig. 3The forest plot of HRs was assessed for association between total TILs and breast cancer long-term prognosis. a Total TILs and disease-free survival/metastasis-free survival, b total TILs and overall survival
Fig. 4The forest plot of HRs was assessed for association between subtypes of TILs and breast cancer long-time prognosis. a CD8+ TILs and disease-free survival/cancer-specific survival, b CD8+ TILs and overall survival, c PD-1+ TILs and disease-free survival, d PD-1+ TILs and overall survival, e Foxp3+ TILs and disease-free survival/cancer-specific survival, f Foxp3+ TILs and overall survival
Fig. 5A positive feedback loop between TILs and breast cancer chemotherapy