| Literature DB >> 29286921 |
Xingcong Ma1, Xiaoyao Zhao1, Wanjun Yan1, Jun Yang2, Xixi Zhao1, Hong Zhang1, Yuxin Hui3, Shuqun Zhang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inhibition of lymphocytes infiltration and activity may impair antitumor immune response and limit treatment responsiveness. Wnt/β-catenin pathway has been suggested to contribute to immune evasion in tumor by suppressing the function of immune cells and excluding T cell infiltration. However, the effects of Wnt/β-catenin on TILs recruitment remain controversial.Entities:
Keywords: CD8+ TILs; FOXP3+ TILs; Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes; Wnt/β-catenin signaling; breast cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29286921 PMCID: PMC5859492 DOI: 10.3233/CBM-170708
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Biomark ISSN: 1574-0153 Impact factor: 4.388
Figure 1.Representative images of -catenin expression in breast cancer sections (magnification, x200). Scores of 1 to 3 were defined according to the immunohistochemical intensity of -catenin.
Figure 2.Representative immunohistochemistry staining of stromal CD8 and FOXP3 T cell infiltrates in breast cancer (magnification, x400). Consecutive sections were used for immunohistochemical detection of FOXP3 (A) and CD8 cells (B).
Correlation analyses between the presence of stromal TILs and clinicopathologic parameters in 96 primary breast cancer patients
| Number of patients (%) | TILs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low ( | intermediate (10–40%) | High ( | p | ||
| Age (years) | |||||
| | 44 (45.8) | 24 (54.5) | 17 (38.6) | 3 (6.8) | 0.773 |
| | 52 (54.2) | 24 (46.2) | 24 (46.2) | 4 (7.6) | |
| Tumor size (mm) | |||||
| | 35 (36.5) | 16 (45.7) | 18 (51.4) | 1 (2.9) | 0.372 |
| 21–50 | 56 (58.3) | 30 (53.6) | 21 (37.5) | 5 (8.9) | |
| | 5 (5.20) | 2 (40.0) | 2 (40.0) | 1 (20.0) | |
| Grade | |||||
| II | 40 (41.7) | 24 (60.0) | 12 (30.0) | 4 (10.0) | 0.020 |
| II | 32 (33.3) | 9 (28.1) | 16 (50.0) | 7 (21.9) | |
| III | 24 (25.0) | 6 (25.0) | 11 (45.8) | 7 (29.2) | |
| Nodal status | |||||
| Negative | 44 (45.8) | 23 (52.3) | 17 (38.6) | 4 (9.1) | 0.736 |
| Positive | 52 (54.2) | 25 (48.1) | 24 (46.2) | 3 (5.7) | |
| HER2 | |||||
| Negative | 56 (58.3) | 32 (57.1) | 20 (35.7) | 4 (7.2) | 0.216 |
| Positive | 40 (41.7) | 16 (40.0) | 21 (52.5) | 3 (7.5) | |
| ER | |||||
| Negative | 28 (29.2) | 7 (25.0) | 16 (57.1) | 5 (17.9) | 0.001 |
| Positive | 68 (70.8) | 41 (60.3) | 25 (36.8) | 2 (2.9) | |
| PR | |||||
| Negative | 42 (43.7) | 15 (35.7) | 22 (52.4) | 5 (11.9) | 0.029 |
| Positive | 54 (56.3) | 33 (61.1) | 19 (35.2) | 2 (3.7) | |
| Stage | |||||
| I | 12 (12.5) | 5 (41.7) | 7 (58.3) | 0 | 0.346 |
| II | 63 (65.6) | 30 (47.6) | 26 (41.3) | 7 (11.1) | |
| III | 21 (21.9) | 13 (61.9) | 8 (38.1) | 0 | |
Comparison of stromal lymphocyte infiltration among molecular subtypes of breast cancer
| Subtype | Number of patients (%) | TILs | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low ( | Intermediate (10–40%) | High ( | |||
| Luminal A | 41 (42.7) | 27 (66.0) | 13 (31.9) | 1 (2.1) | 0.004 |
| Luminal B | 20 (20.8) | 9 (47.6) | 10 (47.6) | 1 (4.8) | |
| HER2 | 19 (19.8) | 5 (26.3) | 12 (63.2) | 2 (10.5) | |
| TNBC | 16 (16.7) | 4 (22.2) | 7 (44.5) | 5 (33.3) | |
Comparison of -catenin expression among molecular subtypes of breast cancer
| Subtype | Number of patients (%) | Nuclear | p | Cytoplasm | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Positive | Negative | Positive | ||||
| Luminal A | 41 (42.7) | 18 (43.9) | 23 (56.1) | 0.051 | 18 (43.9) | 23 (56.1) | 0.000 |
| Luminal B | 20 (20.8) | 10 (50.0) | 10 (50.0) | 9 (45.0) | 11 (55.0) | ||
| HER2 | 19 (19.8) | 8 (42.1) | 11 (57.9) | 5 (26.3) | 14 (73.7) | ||
| TNBC | 16 (16.7) | 5 (31.3) | 11 (68.7) | 3 (18.8) | 13 (81.2) | ||
Figure 3.Correlation between TILs and -catenin in breast cancer. Consecutive sections were used for immunohistochemical detection of TILs distribution and -catenin expression in breast cancer specimens, and cells were evaluated in the same chosen area of the serial sections. Representative images (A–C) show different levels of lymphocyte infiltration in tumor stroma by H&E staining. TILs are reported as the percentage of area occupied by mononuclear inflammatory cells over total intratumoral stromal area, within the borders of the invasive tumor. Corresponding sections were stained with -catenin antibody by standard IHC techniques (D–F). Scores shown are final staining scores defined according to the H score of cytoplasmic -catenin expression.
Figure 4.Correlation of stromal TILs with -catenin expression in 96 breast cancer patients. Patients were grouped into 3 main categories, TILs Low ( 10%), TILs Intermediate (10–40%) and TILs High ( 40%) based on the percentage of TILs in tumor stroma. 0.01 represents significant correlations between the level of stromal lymphocytes infiltration and both nuclear -catenin (A) and cytoplasm -catenin (B) expression. Correlation analysis between stromal TILs with -catenin expression by using the positive/negative cutoff of -catenin expression instead of -catenin expression scores (C). Pearson Correlation test were applied for evaluating the correlation between stromal TILs and -catenin expression (D).
Correlation analyses between presence of stromal TILs and -catenin expression in breast cancer
| Nuclear | p | Cytoplasm | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Positive | Negative | Positive | |||
| TILs Low ( | 33 (68.7) | 15 (31.3) | 0.000 | 28 (58.3) | 20 (41.7) | 0.000 |
| TILs Intermediate (10–40%) | 9 (22.0) | 32 (78.0) | 7 (17.1) | 34 (82.9) | ||
| TILs High ( | 0 | 7 (100) | 0 | 7 (100) | ||
Figure 5.Association of TIL subsets infiltration with -catenin expression in breast cancer. Correlation of stroma TILs with CD8 T cells (A) or FOXP3 T cell (B) infiltration; correlation between CD8 T cells and FOXP3 T cell infiltration (C) and the correlation of -catenin expression with CD8 T cells (D) or FOXP3 T cell (E) were analyzed by Pearson Correlation test.