| Literature DB >> 27162536 |
Zhenhua Li1, Pengzhi Dong2, Meijing Ren1, Yawen Song1, Xiaolong Qian1, Yiling Yang1, Shuai Li1, Xinmin Zhang3, Fangfang Liu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expression of PD-L1 has been estimated to predict the therapeutic potential of PD-L1 inhibition in solid tumors. Recent studies have demonstrated that PD-L1 plays a critical role in regulatory T-cell (Treg) development and functional maintenance. Although increases in FOXP3(+)Treg infiltration and PD-L1 expression have been revealed in several malignancies, their correlation in human breast tumors is as yet unclear.Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; FOXP3+Tregs; Intrinsic subtype; PD-L1; Prognosis.
Year: 2016 PMID: 27162536 PMCID: PMC4860794 DOI: 10.7150/jca.14549
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Figure 1Representative PD-L1 staining intensities. Staining was localized to the cytoplasm and to the membrane of breast cancer cells. A, Intensity 0, no staining; B, Intensity 1+, weak staining; C, Intensity 2+, moderate staining; D, Intensity 3+, strong staining. A-D, original magnification × 200; inset ×400.
Associations between PD-L1 expression and clinicopathological parameters.
| PD-L1 expression | FOXP3+ Tregs | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinicopathological parameters | ||||||||
| 270(53.9) | 231(46.1) | 230(45.9) | 271(54.1) | |||||
| < 50 | 142(57.7) | 104(42.3) | 0.075 | 0.091 | 116(47.2) | 130(52.8) | 0.025 | 0.583 |
| ≥50 | 128(50.2) | 127(49.8) | 114(44.7) | 141(55.3) | ||||
| ≤2 | 76(55.1) | 62(44.9) | 0.015 | 0.744 | 68(49.3) | 70(50.7) | 0.042 | 0.352 |
| > 2 | 194(53.4) | 169(46.6) | 162(44.6) | 201(55.4) | ||||
| Grade 1 | 22(57.9) | 16(42.1) | 0.118 | 29(76.3) | 9(23.7) | 0.208 | ||
| Grade 2 | 192(57.7) | 141(42.3) | 159(47.7) | 174(52.3) | ||||
| Grade 3 | 56(43.1) | 74(56.9) | 42(32.3) | 88(67.7) | ||||
| Negative | 136(58.4) | 97(41.6) | 0.125 | 110(47.2) | 123(52.8) | 0.057 | 0.203 | |
| 1 to 3 | 67(59.8) | 45(40.2) | 57(50.9) | 55(49.1) | ||||
| 4 to 9 | 33(45.8) | 39(54.2) | 35(48.6) | 37(51.4) | ||||
| 10 or more | 34(40.5) | 50(59.5) | 29(34.5) | 55(65.5) | ||||
| Negative | 76(45.2) | 92(54.8) | -0.123 | 33(19.6) | 135(80.4) | -0.374 | ||
| Positive | 194(58.3) | 139(41.7) | 197(59.2) | 136(40.8) | ||||
| Negative | 93(44.7) | 115(55.3) | -0.155 | 53(25.5) | 155(74.5) | -0.345 | ||
| Positive | 177(60.4) | 116(39.6) | 177(60.4) | 116(39.6) | ||||
| Negative | 218(55.5) | 175(44.5) | 1.828 | 0.176 | 192(48.9) | 201(51.1) | 0.113 | |
| Positive | 52(48.1) | 56(51.9) | 38(35.2) | 70(64.8) | ||||
| Luminal A | 116(63.0) | 68(37.0) | 125(67.9) | 59(32.1) | ||||
| Luminal B | 64(54.2) | 54(45.8) | 60(50.8) | 58(49.2) | ||||
| Luminal HER-2 | 35(51.5) | 33(48.5) | 25(36.8) | 43(63.2) | ||||
| HER-2-enriched | 17(42.5) | 23(57.5) | 10(25.0) | 30(75.0) | ||||
| Basal-like | 38(41.8) | 53(58.2) | 10(11.0) | 81(89.0) | ||||
| Low (<11) | 171(71.2) | 69(28.8) | 0.334 | |||||
| High (≥11) | 99(37.9) | 162(62.1) | ||||||
*P-values were calculated by Spearman's rank-correlation test to assess the association of PD-L1 expression and FOXP3+ Treg infiltration with clinicopathological characteristics.
**PD-L1 expression and FOXP3+ Treg infiltration were compared between intrinsic subtypes by the Chi-square test (χ2=13.821; χ2=90.941).
Figure 2Percentage of patients with different breast cancer intrinsic subtypes exhibiting different levels of FOXP3+ Treg infiltration (***p<0.001) and PD-L1 expression (**p=0.008).
Univariate analysis of pathological features, PD-L1 expression and FOXP3+ Treginfiltration with OS and RFS in breast cancer patients
| OS | RFS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | HR | 95% CI | P | HR | 95% CI | P |
| 1.017 | 0.661-1.564 | 0.939 | 0.984 | 0.664-1.460 | 0.937 | |
| 1.188 | 0.718-1.967 | 0.502 | 1.076 | 0.682-1.695 | 0.754 | |
| 2.116 | 1.413-3.171 | 2.075 | 1.437-2.997 | |||
| 2.103 | 1.725-2.563 | 2.045 | 1.709-2.446 | |||
| 0.389 | 0.251-0.600 | 0.482 | 0.325-0.716 | |||
| 0.437 | 0.279-0.684 | 0.542 | 0.363-0.808 | |||
| 2.087 | 1.315-3.314 | 1.753 | 1.135-2.709 | |||
| 2.544 | 1.607-4.028 | 2.262 | 1.498-3.416 | |||
| 4.330 | 2.101-8.926 | 2.418 | 1.400-4.178 | |||
| 6.393 | 0.890-45.932 | 7.929 | 1.106-56.859 | |||
| 2.596 | 1.474-4.572 | 2.649 | 1.608-4.364 | |||
| 0.358 | 0.233-0.552 | 0.470 | 0.314-0.703 | |||
Lymph node stage: N0, indicates no lymph node metastasis; N1, 1-3 lymph node metastasis; N2, 4-9 lymph node metastasis; N3, ≥10 lymph node metastasis.
HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; OS: overall survival; RFS: recurrence-free survival.
Figure 3Prognostic significance of PD-L1 expression alone or combined with evaluation of FOXP3+ Tregs in breast cancer patients. Kaplan-Meier survival curve for (A) OS and (B) RFS depending on the expression of PD-L1. (C) OS and (D) RFS depending on the tumor FOXP3+ Treg infiltration. (E) OS and (F) RFS depending on the PD-L1 expression combined with the tumor FOXP3+ Treg infiltration. p-values were calculated by the log-rank test.
Multivariate analysis of pathological features, PD-L1 expression and FOXP3+ Treg infiltration with OS and RFS in breast cancer patients.
| OS | RFS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | HR | 95% CI | P | HR | 95% CI | P | |
| 0.924 | 0.600-1.424 | 0.720 | 0.902 | 0.607-1.341 | 0.611 | ||
| 1.237 | 0.747-2.048 | 0.409 | 1.107 | 0.682-1.796 | 0.681 | ||
| 1.546 | 1.017-2.350 | 1.562 | 1.072-2.276 | ||||
| 2.030 | 1.650-2.498 | 1.994 | 1.653-2.405 | ||||
| 0.559 | 0.332-0.940 | 0.584 | 0.362-0.941 | ||||
| 0.888 | 0.376-2.095 | 0.785 | 0.892 | 0.444-1.796 | 0.750 | ||
| 1.843 | 1.141-2.979 | 1.940 | 1.127-3.340 | ||||
| 1.874 | 1.018-3.451 | 1.725 | 1.015-2.929 | ||||
| 3.178 | 1.477-6.893 | 2.114 | 1.205-3.706 | ||||
| 1.067 | 0.134-8.529 | 0.951 | 1.946 | 0.252-15.01 | 0.523 | ||
| 0.466 | 0.192-1.131 | 0.091 | 0.486 | 0.215-1.101 | 0.084 | ||
| 0.532 | 0.131-2.156 | 0.377 | 0.607 | 0.180-2.050 | 0.421 | ||
Lymph node stage: N0, indicates no lymph node metastasis; N1, 1-3 lymph node metastasis; N2, 4-9 lymph node metastasis; N3, ≥10 lymph node metastasis.
HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; OS: overall survival; RFS: recurrence-free survival.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of intrinsic subtypes regarding the effect of PD-L1 expression on OS and RFS in breast cancer patients.
| OS | RFS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intrinsic subtype | HR | 95% CI | P | HR | 95% CI | P |
| 4.287 | 1.072-17.145 | 2.346 | 0.953-5.774 | 0.064 | ||
| 3.300 | 1.051-10.366 | 3.998 | 1.030-12.265 | |||
| 3.016 | 0.928-9.807 | 0.066 | 2.068 | 0.735-5.817 | 0.168 | |
| 3.601 | 0.798-16.255 | 0.096 | 4.353 | 0.982-19.298 | 0.053 | |
| 2.835 | 1.124-7.153 | 2.537 | 1.058-6.082 | |||
| 4.118 | 1.029-16.472 | 2.437 | 0.982-6.051 | 0.055 | ||
| 3.078 | 0.970-9.772 | 0.056 | 3.471 | 1.112-10.831 | ||
| 2.990 | 0.898-9.961 | 0.074 | 2.054 | 0.713-5.912 | 0.182 | |
| 3.558 | 0.773-16.371 | 0.103 | 4.243 | 0.946-19.033 | 0.059 | |
| 2.600 | 1.016-6.652 | 2.317 | 0.956-5.615 | 0.063 | ||
*The multivariate analysis of PD-L1 expression in each intrinsic subtype was adjusted by age, tumor size, histological grade, lymph node status and FOXP3+ Tregs
HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; OS: overall survival; RFS: recurrence-free survival.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of intrinsic subtypes regarding the effect of FOXP3+ Tregs on OS and RFS in breast cancer patients
| OS | RFS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intrinsic subtype | HR | 95% CI | P | HR | 95% CI | P | |
| 2.000 | 0.745-5.371 | 0.169 | 1.883 | 0.881-4.023 | 0.102 | ||
| 3.769 | 0.800-17.753 | 0.093 | 2.309 | 0.813-6.557 | 0.116 | ||
| 4.704 | 1.272-17.395 | 3.998 | 1.250-12.785 | ||||
| 3.763 | 1.193-11.869 | 2.559 | 0.895-7.317 | 0.080 | |||
| 7.740 | 1.044-57.355 | 8.387 | 1.134-62.036 | ||||
| 1.988 | 0.740-5.340 | 0.173 | 1.906 | 0.892-4.072 | 0.096 | ||
| 3.339 | 0.709-15.724 | 0.127 | 2.130 | 0.750-6.050 | 0.156 | ||
| 6.076 | 1.525-24.208 | 5.641 | 1.640-19.402 | ||||
| 4.475 | 1.148-17.452 | 2.756 | 0.958-7.932 | 0.060 | |||
| 8.139 | 1.070-61.895 | 6.482 | 0.838-50.142 | 0.073 | |||
*The multivariate analysis of FOXP3+ Tregs in each intrinsic subtype was adjusted by age, tumor size, histological grade, lymph node status and PD-L1 expression
HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; OS: overall survival; RFS: recurrence-free survival.
Figure 4Prognostic significance of PD-L1 expression alone or combined with FOXP3+ Treg infiltration in patients with the basal-like subtype of breast cancer. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for (A) OS and (B) RFS depending on the expression of PD-L1. (C) OS and (D) RFS depending on the tumor FOXP3+ Treg infiltration. (E) OS and (F) RFS depending on the PD-L1 expression combined with the tumor FOXP3+ Treg infiltration. p-values were calculated by the log-rank test.