Anne-Sophie Heimes1, K Madjar2, K Edlund3, M J Battista4, K Almstedt4, S Gebhard4, S Foersch5, J Rahnenführer2, W Brenner4, A Hasenburg4, J G Hengstler3, M Schmidt4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. anne-sophie.heimes@unimedizin-mainz.de. 2. Department of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany. 3. Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (IfADo), TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. 5. Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The transcription factor IRF4 regulates immunoglobulin class switch recombination as well as plasma cell differentiation. We examined the prognostic significance of IRF4 expression in node-negative breast cancer (BC). METHODS: IRF4 expression was evaluated by immunostaining in a cohort of 197 node-negative BC patients not treated in adjuvant setting, referred to as Mainz cohort. The prognostic significance of immunohistochemically determined IRF4 expression for metastasis-free survival (MFS) was examined by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis as well as univariate and multivariate Cox analysis adjusted for age, pT stage, histological grade, ER, and HER2 status. For verification of immunohistochemical results, IRF4 mRNA expression was evaluated using microarray-based gene expression profiling in four previously published cohorts (Mainz, Rotterdam, Transbig, Yu) consisting of 824 node-negative breast cancer patients in total, who were not treated with adjuvant therapy. The prognostic significance of IRF4 mRNA expression on metastasis-free survival (MFS) was examined by univariate and multivariate Cox analysis in the Mainz cohort and by a meta-analysis of all node-negative BC patients and different molecular subtypes. IRF4 mRNA levels were compared to immunohistochemically determined IRF4 expression in 140 patients of the Mainz cohort using Spearman correlation. RESULTS: Immunohistochemically determined high IRF4 expression was associated with higher MFS in univariate Cox regression (HR 0.178, 95% CI 0.070-0.453, p < 0.001). IRF4 maintained its significance independently of established clinical factors for MFS (HR 0.088, 95% CI 0.033-0.232, p < 0.001). Immunohistochemically, determined IRF4 correlated moderately with IRF4 mRNA expression (ρ = 0.589). Higher expression of IRF4 was associated with better MFS in a meta-analysis of the total cohort (HR 0.438, 95% CI 0.307-0.623, p < 0.001). Prognostic significance was more pronounced in the HER2+ molecular subtype (HR 0.215, 95% CI 0.090-0.515, p = 0.001) as compared to the luminal A (HR 0.549, 95% CI 0.248-1.215, p = 0.139), luminal B (HR 0.444, 95% CI 0.215-0.916, p = 0.028), and basal-like subtypes (HR 0.487, 95% CI 0.269-0.883, p = 0.018). Further, IRF4 expression showed independent prognostic significance in a multivariate analysis of the Mainz cohort (HR 0.236, 95% CI 0.105-0.527, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IRF4 had independent prognostic significance in node-negative BC. Higher expression of IRF4 was associated with improved outcome. The prognostic impact differed between diverse molecular subtypes and was most pronounced in HER2+ breast cancer.
PURPOSE: The transcription factor IRF4 regulates immunoglobulin class switch recombination as well as plasma cell differentiation. We examined the prognostic significance of IRF4 expression in node-negative breast cancer (BC). METHODS:IRF4 expression was evaluated by immunostaining in a cohort of 197 node-negative BC patients not treated in adjuvant setting, referred to as Mainz cohort. The prognostic significance of immunohistochemically determined IRF4 expression for metastasis-free survival (MFS) was examined by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis as well as univariate and multivariate Cox analysis adjusted for age, pT stage, histological grade, ER, and HER2 status. For verification of immunohistochemical results, IRF4 mRNA expression was evaluated using microarray-based gene expression profiling in four previously published cohorts (Mainz, Rotterdam, Transbig, Yu) consisting of 824 node-negative breast cancerpatients in total, who were not treated with adjuvant therapy. The prognostic significance of IRF4 mRNA expression on metastasis-free survival (MFS) was examined by univariate and multivariate Cox analysis in the Mainz cohort and by a meta-analysis of all node-negative BC patients and different molecular subtypes. IRF4 mRNA levels were compared to immunohistochemically determined IRF4 expression in 140 patients of the Mainz cohort using Spearman correlation. RESULTS: Immunohistochemically determined high IRF4 expression was associated with higher MFS in univariate Cox regression (HR 0.178, 95% CI 0.070-0.453, p < 0.001). IRF4 maintained its significance independently of established clinical factors for MFS (HR 0.088, 95% CI 0.033-0.232, p < 0.001). Immunohistochemically, determined IRF4 correlated moderately with IRF4 mRNA expression (ρ = 0.589). Higher expression of IRF4 was associated with better MFS in a meta-analysis of the total cohort (HR 0.438, 95% CI 0.307-0.623, p < 0.001). Prognostic significance was more pronounced in the HER2+ molecular subtype (HR 0.215, 95% CI 0.090-0.515, p = 0.001) as compared to the luminal A (HR 0.549, 95% CI 0.248-1.215, p = 0.139), luminal B (HR 0.444, 95% CI 0.215-0.916, p = 0.028), and basal-like subtypes (HR 0.487, 95% CI 0.269-0.883, p = 0.018). Further, IRF4 expression showed independent prognostic significance in a multivariate analysis of the Mainz cohort (HR 0.236, 95% CI 0.105-0.527, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:IRF4 had independent prognostic significance in node-negative BC. Higher expression of IRF4 was associated with improved outcome. The prognostic impact differed between diverse molecular subtypes and was most pronounced in HER2+ breast cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anti-tumor immunity; Breast cancer; IRF4; Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs)
Authors: Marcus Schmidt; Ilka Brigitte Petry; Daniel Böhm; Antje Lebrecht; Christian von Törne; Susanne Gebhard; Aslihan Gerhold-Ay; Cristina Cotarelo; Marco Battista; Wiebke Schormann; Evgenia Freis; Silvia Selinski; Katja Ickstadt; Jörg Rahnenführer; Martin Sebastian; Martin Schuler; Heinz Koelbl; Mathias Gehrmann; Jan G Hengstler Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: R Salgado; C Denkert; S Demaria; N Sirtaine; F Klauschen; G Pruneri; S Wienert; G Van den Eynden; F L Baehner; F Penault-Llorca; E A Perez; E A Thompson; W F Symmans; A L Richardson; J Brock; C Criscitiello; H Bailey; M Ignatiadis; G Floris; J Sparano; Z Kos; T Nielsen; D L Rimm; K H Allison; J S Reis-Filho; S Loibl; C Sotiriou; G Viale; S Badve; S Adams; K Willard-Gallo; S Loi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Purevdorj B Olkhanud; Bazarragchaa Damdinsuren; Monica Bodogai; Ronald E Gress; Ranjan Sen; Katarzyna Wejksza; Enkhzol Malchinkhuu; Robert P Wersto; Arya Biragyn Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Marcus Schmidt; Daniel Böhm; Christian von Törne; Eric Steiner; Alexander Puhl; Henryk Pilch; Hans-Anton Lehr; Jan G Hengstler; Heinz Kölbl; Mathias Gehrmann Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Chung-Che Chang; Jennifer Lorek; Daniel E Sabath; Ying Li; Christopher R Chitambar; Brent Logan; Bal Kampalath; Ronald P Cleveland Journal: Blood Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Marcus Schmidt; Veronika Weyer-Elberich; Jan G Hengstler; Anne-Sophie Heimes; Katrin Almstedt; Aslihan Gerhold-Ay; Antje Lebrecht; Marco J Battista; Annette Hasenburg; Ugur Sahin; Konstantine T Kalogeras; Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen; George Fountzilas; Ralph M Wirtz; Heikki Joensuu Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 6.466