Rico D Bense1, Christos Sotiriou1, Martine J Piccart-Gebhart1, John B A G Haanen1, Marcel A T M van Vugt1, Elisabeth G E de Vries1, Carolien P Schröder1, Rudolf S N Fehrmann1. 1. Affiliations of authors: Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (RDB, MATMvV, EGEdV, CPS, RSNF); Department of Medical Oncology and Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium (CS, MJPG); Division of Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (JBAGH).
Abstract
Background: Not all breast cancer patients benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy, resulting in considerable undertreatment or overtreatment. New insights into the role of tumor-infiltrating immune cells suggest that their composition, as well as their functionality, might serve as a biomarker to enable optimal patient selection for current systemic therapies and upcoming treatment options such as immunotherapy. Methods: We performed several complementary unbiased in silico analyses on gene expression profiles of 7270 unrelated tumor samples of nonmetastatic breast cancer patients with known clinical follow-up. CIBERSORT was used to estimate the fraction of 22 immune cell types to study their relations with pathological complete response (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). In addition, we used four previously reported immune gene signatures and a CD8+ T-cell exhaustion signature to assess their relationships with breast cancer outcome. Multivariable binary logistic regression and multivariable Cox regression were used to assess the association of immune cell-type fractions and immune signatures with pCR and DFS/OS, respectively. Results: Increased fraction of regulatory T-cells in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumors was associated with a lower pCR rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.03 to 0.69), as well as shorter DFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.13, 95% CI = 1.23 to 7.98) and OS (HR = 7.69, 95% CI = 3.43 to 17.23). A higher fraction of M0 macrophages in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors was associated with worse DFS (HR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.33) and, in ER-positive/HER2-negative tumors, with worse OS (HR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.12 to 2.61). Increased fractions of γδ T-cells in all breast cancer patients related to a higher pCR rate (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.01 to 2.38), prolonged DFS (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.98), and, in HER2-positive tumors, with prolonged OS (HR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.73). A higher fraction of activated mast cells was associated with worse DFS (HR = 5.85, 95% CI = 2.20 to 15.54) and OS (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 2.04 to 13.91) in HER2-positive tumors. The composition of relevant immune cell types frequently differed per breast cancer subtype. Furthermore, a high CD8+ T-cell exhaustion signature score was associated with shortened DFS in patients with ER-positive tumors regardless of HER2 status (HR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.07 to 3.04). Conclusions: The main hypothesis generated in our unbiased in silico approach is that a multitude of immune cells are related to treatment response and outcome in breast cancer.
Background: Not all breast cancerpatients benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy, resulting in considerable undertreatment or overtreatment. New insights into the role of tumor-infiltrating immune cells suggest that their composition, as well as their functionality, might serve as a biomarker to enable optimal patient selection for current systemic therapies and upcoming treatment options such as immunotherapy. Methods: We performed several complementary unbiased in silico analyses on gene expression profiles of 7270 unrelated tumor samples of nonmetastatic breast cancerpatients with known clinical follow-up. CIBERSORT was used to estimate the fraction of 22 immune cell types to study their relations with pathological complete response (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). In addition, we used four previously reported immune gene signatures and a CD8+ T-cell exhaustion signature to assess their relationships with breast cancer outcome. Multivariable binary logistic regression and multivariable Cox regression were used to assess the association of immune cell-type fractions and immune signatures with pCR and DFS/OS, respectively. Results: Increased fraction of regulatory T-cells in humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumors was associated with a lower pCR rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.03 to 0.69), as well as shorter DFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.13, 95% CI = 1.23 to 7.98) and OS (HR = 7.69, 95% CI = 3.43 to 17.23). A higher fraction of M0 macrophages in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors was associated with worse DFS (HR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.33) and, in ER-positive/HER2-negative tumors, with worse OS (HR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.12 to 2.61). Increased fractions of γδ T-cells in all breast cancerpatients related to a higher pCR rate (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.01 to 2.38), prolonged DFS (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.98), and, in HER2-positive tumors, with prolonged OS (HR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.73). A higher fraction of activated mast cells was associated with worse DFS (HR = 5.85, 95% CI = 2.20 to 15.54) and OS (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 2.04 to 13.91) in HER2-positive tumors. The composition of relevant immune cell types frequently differed per breast cancer subtype. Furthermore, a high CD8+ T-cell exhaustion signature score was associated with shortened DFS in patients with ER-positive tumors regardless of HER2 status (HR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.07 to 3.04). Conclusions: The main hypothesis generated in our unbiased in silico approach is that a multitude of immune cells are related to treatment response and outcome in breast cancer.
Authors: Brian D Lehmann; Joshua A Bauer; Xi Chen; Melinda E Sanders; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Yu Shyr; Jennifer A Pietenpol Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Rudolf S N Fehrmann; Juha M Karjalainen; Małgorzata Krajewska; Harm-Jan Westra; David Maloney; Anton Simeonov; Tune H Pers; Joel N Hirschhorn; Ritsert C Jansen; Erik A Schultes; Herman H H B M van Haagen; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Gerard J te Meerman; Cisca Wijmenga; Marcel A T M van Vugt; Lude Franke Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Emanuela Romano; Monika Kusio-Kobialka; Periklis G Foukas; Petra Baumgaertner; Christiane Meyer; Pierluigi Ballabeni; Olivier Michielin; Benjamin Weide; Pedro Romero; Daniel E Speiser Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Joel S Parker; Michael Mullins; Maggie C U Cheang; Samuel Leung; David Voduc; Tammi Vickery; Sherri Davies; Christiane Fauron; Xiaping He; Zhiyuan Hu; John F Quackenbush; Inge J Stijleman; Juan Palazzo; J S Marron; Andrew B Nobel; Elaine Mardis; Torsten O Nielsen; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou; Philip S Bernard Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eoin F McKinney; Paul A Lyons; Edward J Carr; Jane L Hollis; David R W Jayne; Lisa C Willcocks; Maria Koukoulaki; Alvis Brazma; Vojislav Jovanovic; D Michael Kemeny; Andrew J Pollard; Paul A Macary; Afzal N Chaudhry; Kenneth G C Smith Journal: Nat Med Date: 2010-04-18 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: C Davies; J Godwin; R Gray; M Clarke; D Cutter; S Darby; P McGale; H C Pan; C Taylor; Y C Wang; M Dowsett; J Ingle; R Peto Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 79.321