Beatriz Grandal1,2, Clémence Evrevin1, Enora Laas1, Isabelle Jardin1, Sonia Rozette1, Lucie Laot1, Elise Dumas2, Florence Coussy3, Jean-Yves Pierga3, Etienne Brain4, Claire Saule5, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet5, Sophie Frank5, Claire Sénéchal6, Marick Lae7,8, Diane De Croze7, Guillaume Bataillon9, Julien Guerin10, Fabien Reyal1,2, Anne-Sophie Hamy2. 1. Department of Surgery, Institut Curie, University Paris, 75005 Paris, France. 2. Residual Tumor & Response to Treatment Laboratory, RT2Lab, Translational Research Department, INSERM, U932 Immunity and Cancer, Institut Curie, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France. 3. Department of Oncology, Institut Curie, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France. 4. Department of Oncology, Centre René Huguenin, Institut Curie, 35 rue Dailly, 92210 St Cloud, France. 5. Department of Genetics, Institut Curie, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France. 6. Department of Genetics, Institut Bergonié, 229 Cours de l'Argonne, 33000 Bordeaux, France. 7. Department of Pathology, Centre René Huguenin, Institut Curie, 35 rue Dailly, 92210 St Cloud, France. 8. Department of Pathology, Centre Henri Becquerel, INSERM U1245, UNIROUEN, University of Normandie, 76038 Rouen, France. 9. Department of Pathology, Institut Curie, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France. 10. Data Office, Institut Curie, 25 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Five to 10% of breast cancers (BCs) occur in a genetic predisposition context (mainly BRCA pathogenic variant). Nevertheless, little is known about immune tumor infiltration, response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), pathologic complete response (pCR) and adverse events according to BRCA status. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Out of 1199 invasive BC patients treated with NAC between 2002 and 2012, we identified 267 patients tested for a germline BRCA pathogenic variant. We evaluated pre-NAC and post-NAC immune infiltration (TILs). Response to chemotherapy was assessed by pCR rates. Association of clinical and pathological factors with TILs, pCR and survival was assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Among 1199 BC patients: 46 were BRCA-deficient and 221 BRCA-proficient or wild type (WT). At NAC completion, pCR was observed in 84/266 (31%) patients and pCR rates were significantly higher in BRCA-deficient BC (p = 0.001), and this association remained statistically significant only in the luminal BC subtype (p = 0.006). The interaction test between BC subtype and BRCA status was nearly significant (Pinteraction = 0.056). Pre and post-NAC TILs were not significantly different between BRCA-deficient and BRCA-proficient carriers; however, in the luminal BC group, post-NAC TILs were significantly higher in BRCA-deficient BC. Survival analysis were not different between BRCA-carriers and non-carriers. CONCLUSIONS: BRCA mutation status is associated with higher pCR rates and post-NAC TILs in patients with luminal BC. BRCA-carriers with luminal BCs may represent a subset of patients deriving higher benefit from NAC. Second line therapies, including immunotherapy after NAC, could be of interest in non-responders to NAC.
INTRODUCTION: Five to 10% of breast cancers (BCs) occur in a genetic predisposition context (mainly BRCA pathogenic variant). Nevertheless, little is known about immune tumor infiltration, response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), pathologic complete response (pCR) and adverse events according to BRCA status. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Out of 1199 invasive BCpatients treated with NAC between 2002 and 2012, we identified 267 patients tested for a germline BRCA pathogenic variant. We evaluated pre-NAC and post-NAC immune infiltration (TILs). Response to chemotherapy was assessed by pCR rates. Association of clinical and pathological factors with TILs, pCR and survival was assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Among 1199 BC patients: 46 were BRCA-deficient and 221 BRCA-proficient or wild type (WT). At NAC completion, pCR was observed in 84/266 (31%) patients and pCR rates were significantly higher in BRCA-deficient BC (p = 0.001), and this association remained statistically significant only in the luminal BC subtype (p = 0.006). The interaction test between BC subtype and BRCA status was nearly significant (Pinteraction = 0.056). Pre and post-NAC TILs were not significantly different between BRCA-deficient and BRCA-proficient carriers; however, in the luminal BC group, post-NAC TILs were significantly higher in BRCA-deficient BC. Survival analysis were not different between BRCA-carriers and non-carriers. CONCLUSIONS:BRCA mutation status is associated with higher pCR rates and post-NAC TILs in patients with luminal BC. BRCA-carriers with luminal BCs may represent a subset of patients deriving higher benefit from NAC. Second line therapies, including immunotherapy after NAC, could be of interest in non-responders to NAC.
Authors: Kuan-Lin Huang; R Jay Mashl; Yige Wu; Deborah I Ritter; Jiayin Wang; Clara Oh; Marta Paczkowska; Sheila Reynolds; Matthew A Wyczalkowski; Ninad Oak; Adam D Scott; Michal Krassowski; Andrew D Cherniack; Kathleen E Houlahan; Reyka Jayasinghe; Liang-Bo Wang; Daniel Cui Zhou; Di Liu; Song Cao; Young Won Kim; Amanda Koire; Joshua F McMichael; Vishwanathan Hucthagowder; Tae-Beom Kim; Abigail Hahn; Chen Wang; Michael D McLellan; Fahd Al-Mulla; Kimberly J Johnson; Olivier Lichtarge; Paul C Boutros; Benjamin Raphael; Alexander J Lazar; Wei Zhang; Michael C Wendl; Ramaswamy Govindan; Sanjay Jain; David Wheeler; Shashikant Kulkarni; John F Dipersio; Jüri Reimand; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Ken Chen; Ilya Shmulevich; Sharon E Plon; Feng Chen; Li Ding Journal: Cell Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: F Eisinger; J Jacquemier; C Charpin; D Stoppa-Lyonnet; B Bressac-de Paillerets; J P Peyrat; M Longy; J M Guinebretière; R Sauvan; T Noguchi; D Birnbaum; H Sobol Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1998-04-15 Impact factor: 12.701
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: José Palacios; Emiliano Honrado; Ana Osorio; Alicia Cazorla; David Sarrió; Alicia Barroso; Sandra Rodríguez; Juan C Cigudosa; Orland Diez; Carmen Alonso; Enrique Lerma; Joaquín Dopazo; Carmen Rivas; Javier Benítez Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Sunil R Lakhani; Marc J Van De Vijver; Jocelyne Jacquemier; Thomas J Anderson; Peter P Osin; Lesley McGuffog; Douglas F Easton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Melinda L Telli; Charles Chu; Sunil S Badve; Shaveta Vinayak; Daniel P Silver; Steven J Isakoff; Virginia Kaklamani; William Gradishar; Vered Stearns; Roisin M Connolly; James M Ford; Joshua J Gruber; Sylvia Adams; Judy Garber; Nadine Tung; Chris Neff; Ryan Bernhisel; Kirsten M Timms; Andrea L Richardson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nanna Jørgensen; Thomas Vauvert F Hviid; Lise B Nielsen; Ida M H Sønderstrup; Jens Ole Eriksen; Bent Ejlertsen; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Torben A Kruse; Mads Thomassen; Maj-Britt Jensen; Anne-Vibeke Lænkholm Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2021-08-07 Impact factor: 9.075