| Literature DB >> 32408905 |
Cornelia Kolberg-Liedtke1, Oleg Gluz2,3, Fred Heinisch4, Friedrich Feuerhake5, Hans Kreipe5, Michael Clemens6, Benno Nuding7, Wolfram Malter8, Toralf Reimer9, Rachel Wuerstlein2,10, Monika Graeser2,3, Steve Shak10, Ulrike Nitz2,3, Ronald Kates2, Matthias Christgen5, Nadia Harbeck2,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes has been associated with prognosis and chemotherapy response, particularly in high-risk breast cancer subtypes. There is limited data so far as to (i) how tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) measurements correlate with genomic measurements such as the Oncotype DX Recurrence Score® and (ii) whether the survival impact of TIL measurements varies according to different adjuvant systemic therapies.Entities:
Keywords: Adjuvant chemotherapy; Breast cancer; Disease-free survival; Hormone receptor status; Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32408905 PMCID: PMC7227091 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-020-01283-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res ISSN: 1465-5411 Impact factor: 6.466
Patient characteristics according to sTIL categories. sTIL categories were defined as “low sTILs” (0–10% sTILs), “intermediate sTILs” (11–50% sTILs), and “high sTILs” (51–100% sTILs)
| All | Low sTILs (valid %) | Intermediate sTILs (valid %) | High sTILs (valid %) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1499 | 1232 (82.2) | 218 (14.5) | 49 (3.3) | .760 | |
| 1088 | 885 (81.5) | 163 (15.0) | 38 (3.5) | ||
| 89 | 75 (84.3) | 13 (14.6) | 1 (1.1) | ||
| 17 | 16 (94.1) | 1 (5.9) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| 1843 | 1499 (81.3) | 274 (14.9) | 70 (3.8) | .021 | |
| 978 | 829 (84.8) | 130 (13.3) | 19 (1.9) | ||
| 172 | 143 (831) | 27 (15.7) | 2 (1.2) | ||
| 445 | 256(57.5) | 143 (32.1) | 46 (10.3) | < .001 | |
| 2246 | 1952 (86.9) | 252 (11.2) | 42 (1.9) | ||
| 625 | 399 (63.8) | 172 (27.5) | 54 (8.6) | < .001 | |
| 2066 | 1809 (87.6) | 223 (10.8) | 34 (1.6) | ||
| 419 | 236 (56.3) | 138 (32.9) | 45 (10.7) | < .001 | |
| 2574 | 2235 (86.8) | 293 (11.4) | 46 (1.8) | ||
| 984 | 794 (80.7) | 163 (16, 6) | 27 (2.7) | .055 | |
| 2009 | 1677 (83.5) | 268 (13.3) | 64 (3.2) | ||
| 1040 | 959 (92.2) | 76 (7.3) | 5 (0.5) | < .001 | |
| 1383 | 1113 (80.5) | 223 (16.1) | 47 (3.4) | ||
| 305 | 159 (52.1) | 112 (36.7) | 34 (11.1) | ||
| 449 | 423 (94.2) | 25 (5.6) | 1 (0.2) | < .001 | |
| 1509 | 1345 (89.1) | 146 (9.7) | 18 (1.2) | ||
| 546 | 407 (74.5) | 112 (20.5) | 27 (4.9) | ||
Fig. 1a Kaplan-Meier analysis of DFS according to sTIL categories (HR negative). b Kaplan-Meier analysis of DFS according to sTIL categories (HR positive)
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier analysis of DFS according to sTILs. a Among patients with RS ≤ 11 and endocrine therapy alone (no Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to low number of patients/events). b Among patients treated with chemotherapy (irrespective of HR status). c Among patients with HR-negative tumors treated with chemotherapy. d Among patients with HR-positive tumors (and RS values of 12–99 treated with chemotherapy)