Nan Wu1, Lijuan Wei1, Lijuan Li1, Fangxuan Li1, Jinpu Yu2, Juntian Liu3,4. 1. Cancer Prevention Center, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tiyuanbei, Huanhuxi Rode, Hexi District, Tianjin, 300060, China. 2. The Molecular Diagnostics, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tiyuanbei, Huanhuxi Rode, Hexi District, Tianjin, 300060, China. yujinpu@tjmuch.com. 3. Cancer Prevention Center, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tiyuanbei, Huanhuxi Rode, Hexi District, Tianjin, 300060, China. ljt641024@163.com. 4. The Second Department of Breast Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, 300060, China. ljt641024@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 can repair damaged DNA through homologous recombination. Besides, the local immune microenvironment of breast cancer is closely linked to the prognosis of patients. But the relationship of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 expression and local immunosuppressive microenvironment in breast cancer is not clear. The aim of this study was to discuss the correlation between them. METHODS: The fresh primary breast tumors and paired normal tissues of 156 cases of breast cancer patients as well as peripheral blood of 156 cases among them in Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital from January 2014 to October 2018 were collected. The association between breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 germline mutation and immune status of microenvironment in situ was analyzed. RESULTS: The results indicated that the germline mutation of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 was inconsistent with the breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 protein expression, and the proportion of immune cells in patients with negative expression of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 protein was higher than patients with positive expression of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 protein (p < 0.05). And the expression of programmed cell death protein 1, cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4, programmed death ligand-1 of CD3+ T cells in patients with negative expression of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 protein was higher than patients with positive expression of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 protein (p < 0.05). The breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 protein expression was significantly correlated with family history of breast cancer patients (p = 0.006), local lymph node metastases (p = 0.001), and TNM staging (p ≤ 0.001). The breast cancer susceptibility gene 2 protein expression was significantly related to local lymph node metastases (p ≤ 0.001), III stage rate(p = 0.003) and molecular subtyping (p ≤ 0.001). Besides, the 5 years disease free survival was worse for G1 group and pathological III stage patients than other groups and other TNM stage patients. CONCLUSION: In short, the immune therapy may be a potential therapy method for breast cancer patients with negative expression of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 protein.
PURPOSE: Breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 can repair damaged DNA through homologous recombination. Besides, the local immune microenvironment of breast cancer is closely linked to the prognosis of patients. But the relationship of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 expression and local immunosuppressive microenvironment in breast cancer is not clear. The aim of this study was to discuss the correlation between them. METHODS: The fresh primary breast tumors and paired normal tissues of 156 cases of breast cancer patients as well as peripheral blood of 156 cases among them in Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital from January 2014 to October 2018 were collected. The association between breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 germline mutation and immune status of microenvironment in situ was analyzed. RESULTS: The results indicated that the germline mutation of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 was inconsistent with the breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 protein expression, and the proportion of immune cells in patients with negative expression of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 protein was higher than patients with positive expression of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 protein (p < 0.05). And the expression of programmed cell death protein 1, cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4, programmed death ligand-1 of CD3+ T cells in patients with negative expression of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 protein was higher than patients with positive expression of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 protein (p < 0.05). The breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 protein expression was significantly correlated with family history of breast cancer patients (p = 0.006), local lymph node metastases (p = 0.001), and TNM staging (p ≤ 0.001). The breast cancer susceptibility gene 2 protein expression was significantly related to local lymph node metastases (p ≤ 0.001), III stage rate(p = 0.003) and molecular subtyping (p ≤ 0.001). Besides, the 5 years disease free survival was worse for G1 group and pathological III stage patients than other groups and other TNM stage patients. CONCLUSION: In short, the immune therapy may be a potential therapy method for breast cancer patients with negative expression of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 protein.
Authors: J M Satagopan; K Offit; W Foulkes; M E Robson; S Wacholder; C M Eng; S E Karp; C B Begg Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Mary B Daly; Robert Pilarski; Michael Berry; Saundra S Buys; Meagan Farmer; Susan Friedman; Judy E Garber; Noah D Kauff; Seema Khan; Catherine Klein; Wendy Kohlmann; Allison Kurian; Jennifer K Litton; Lisa Madlensky; Sofia D Merajver; Kenneth Offit; Tuya Pal; Gwen Reiser; Kristen Mahoney Shannon; Elizabeth Swisher; Shaveta Vinayak; Nicoleta C Voian; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Myra J Wick; Georgia L Wiesner; Mary Dwyer; Susan Darlow Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: A Antoniou; P D P Pharoah; S Narod; H A Risch; J E Eyfjord; J L Hopper; N Loman; H Olsson; O Johannsson; A Borg; B Pasini; P Radice; S Manoukian; D M Eccles; N Tang; E Olah; H Anton-Culver; E Warner; J Lubinski; J Gronwald; B Gorski; H Tulinius; S Thorlacius; H Eerola; H Nevanlinna; K Syrjäkoski; O-P Kallioniemi; D Thompson; C Evans; J Peto; F Lalloo; D G Evans; D F Easton Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2003-04-03 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Nasim Mavaddat; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; Steve Ellis; Radka Platte; Elena Fineberg; D Gareth Evans; Louise Izatt; Rosalind A Eeles; Julian Adlard; Rosemarie Davidson; Diana Eccles; Trevor Cole; Jackie Cook; Carole Brewer; Marc Tischkowitz; Fiona Douglas; Shirley Hodgson; Lisa Walker; Mary E Porteous; Patrick J Morrison; Lucy E Side; M John Kennedy; Catherine Houghton; Alan Donaldson; Mark T Rogers; Huw Dorkins; Zosia Miedzybrodzka; Helen Gregory; Jacqueline Eason; Julian Barwell; Emma McCann; Alex Murray; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506