| Literature DB >> 35267639 |
Sylvie Giacchetti1, Lilith Faucheux2,3, Charlotte Gardair4, Caroline Cuvier1, Anne de Roquancourt4, Luca Campedel1, David Groheux3,5, Cedric de Bazelaire6, Jacqueline Lehmann-Che3,7, Catherine Miquel4, Laurence Cahen Doidy8, Malika Amellou1, Isabelle Madelaine9, Fabien Reyal10,11, Laetitia Someil1, Hamid Hocini1, Christophe Hennequin12, Luis Teixeira1,3, Marc Espié1,3, Sylvie Chevret2,13, Vassili Soumelis3,4, Anne-Sophie Hamy11,14.
Abstract
Background: Patients with triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) have a poor prognosis unless a pathological complete response (pCR) is achieved after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Few studies have analyzed changes in TIL levels following dose-dense dose-intense (dd-di) NAC. Patients and methods: From 2009 to 2018, 117 patients with TNBC received dd-di NAC at our institution. We aimed to identify factors associated with pre- and post-NAC TIL levels, and oncological outcomes relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS).Entities:
Keywords: dose dense neoadjuvant chemotherapy; stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte; triple negative breast cancers
Year: 2022 PMID: 35267639 PMCID: PMC8909288 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14051331
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Study diagram. Orange arrows represent dose dense dose intense anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy; blue arrows represent taxanes based chemotherapy; green arrows represent weekly paclitaxel chemotherapy.
Patients and tumor characteristics.
| Parameters | Values | Statistics * | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| 117 | 49.37 (23.69; 72) | |
|
| 0 | 33 | 28.2% |
| 1–3 | 66 | 56.4% | |
| >3 | 18 | 15.4% | |
|
| premenopausal | 68 | 58.1% |
| postmenopausal | 49 | 41.9% | |
|
| 0 | 82 | 71.3% |
| 1 | 21 | 18.3% | |
| ≥2 | 12 | 10.4% | |
|
| T1 | 3 | 2.5% |
| T2 | 52 | 44.00% | |
| T3 | 62 | 53% | |
|
| N− | 56 | 47.9% |
| N+ | 61 | 52.1% | |
|
| 2 | 19 | 16.2% |
| 3 | 98 | 83.8% | |
|
| Mutated | 77 | 85.6% |
| Wild type | 13 | 14.4% | |
|
| Absence | 91 | 83.5% |
| Presence | 18 | 16.5% | |
|
| 108 | 11.95 (2.7; 31.4) | |
|
| 106 | 15 (0; 80) | |
|
| SIM-1 | 90 | 76.9% |
| SIM-2 | 27 | 23.1% | |
|
| |||
|
| No pCR | 68 | 58.1% |
| pCR | 49 | 41.9% | |
|
| ypN− | 83 | 71.5% |
| ypN+ | 33 | 28.4% | |
|
| Absence | 106 | 91.4% |
| Presence | 10 | 8.6% | |
|
| 99 | 3.8 (0; 23.7) | |
|
| 108 | 3 (0; 80) | |
|
| |||
|
| 100 | −68.77 (−100; 0) | |
|
| <0 | 69 | 69% |
* percentage for class parameters; median (range) for continuous parameters. Number of unavailable information: Family history (2); p53 (27); Pre-NAC LVI (8); Pre-NAC SUV (9); Pre-NAC TIL levels (11); Post-NAC nodal involvement (1) Post-NAC LVI (1); SUV at 2-cures (18); Post-NAC TIL levels (9); SUV relative variation (17); TILs absolute variation (17).
Figure 2Associations between pre-NAC TIL levels and clinical, pathological, and metabolic factors. (A) Distribution of pre-NAC TIL levels; (B) Distribution of pre-NAC TIL levels, by increments of 10%; (C–E) Association of pre-NAC TIL levels with clinical and pathological factors: tumor size (C), tumor grade (D), pre-NAC SUV (E).
Figure 3Change after NAC in SUV levels, TIL levels, and the correlation between the relative change in SUV and the absolute change in TIL levels. (A) Change in SUV levels after two courses of NAC. The lines indicate the pre NAC and post NAC (after two courses of NAC) paired SUV results for a given patient and are colored according to the category of change in SUV (more than 70%; less than 70%); (B) Change in TIL levels after NAC; (C) Pearson correlation between the relative change in SUV and the absolute change in TIL levels. Points are colored according to the category of change in TIL levels (decrease; no change; increase in TIL levels); (D) Change in TIL levels according to pre-NAC TIL level, binned by increments of 10%. (B,D) Lines indicate the paired pre and post NAC paired TIL levels for a given patient and are colored according to the category of change in TIL levels (decrease; no change; increase in TIL levels); (E) Waterfall plot representing the change in TIL levels according to pCR status; each bar represents one patient, and patients are ranked in ascending order of change in TIL levels.
Figure 4Post-NAC TIL levels and their association with post-NAC pathological factors. (A) Distribution of post-NAC TIL levels; (B) Distribution of post-NAC TIL levels, by increments of 10%; (C) Association of post-NAC TIL levels with SUV values after two cycles of NAC; (D–F) Association of post-NAC TIL levels with clinical and pathological factors: pCR status (D); post-NAC nodal involvement (E); and post-NAC LVI (F); (G,H) RFS (G) and OS (H) according to post-NAC TIL level, stratified into three classes: 0–10%; 10–20%; ≥20%. The reported p-values are those for post-NAC TIL levels in the corresponding multivariate Cox regression (i.e., the continuous TIL levels, after adjustment for post-NAC nodal involvement and post-NAC LVI for RFS (G) and for post-NAC LVI for OS (H)). The corresponding Cox regressions are reported in Table 3 and Table S5, respectively.
Predictive factors associated with post-NAC TIL levels.
| Univariate Analyses | Multivariate Analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Levels | Coefficient | IC 95% | Coefficient | IC 95% | ||
|
| |||||||
| Age | −0.01 | (−0.03; 0.0097) | 0.31 | ||||
| Age (class) | <45 | ||||||
| ≥45 | −0.089 | (−0.59; 0.41) | 0.726 | ||||
| Pregnancies | 0 | ||||||
| 1–3 | 0.17 | (−0.36; 0.7) | 0.534 | ||||
| >3 | 0.0098 | (−0.71; 0.73) | 0.978 | ||||
| Menopausal status | premenopausal | ||||||
| postmenopausal | −0.13 | (−0.59; 0.34) | 0.595 | ||||
| Family history | 0 | ||||||
| 1 | 0.15 | (−0.45; 0.75) | 0.63 | ||||
| ≥2 | 0.53 | (−0.21; 1.3) | 0.16 | ||||
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Clinical nodal status | N− | ||||||
| N+ | 0.16 | (−0.3; 0.61) | 0.5 | ||||
| Tumor grade | 2 | ||||||
| 3 | 0.06 | (−0.56; 0.68) | 0.847 | ||||
| LVI | Absence | ||||||
| Presence | 0.11 | (−0.54; 0.75) | 0.74 | ||||
| SUV | −0.026 | (−0.065; 0.014) | 0.20 | ||||
| TIL levels | −0.0027 | (−0.014; 0.0083) | 0.63 | ||||
| Chemotherapy regimen | SIM-1 | ||||||
| SIM-2 | 0.43 | (−0.12; 0.98) | 0.127 | ||||
|
| |||||||
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| LVI | Absence | ||||||
| Presence | 0.65 | (−0.13; 1.4) | 0.10 | ||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
| 0.0075 | (−0.0026; 0.018) | 0.14 | |
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
p-Values were annotated as follow: *: ≤0.05; ***: ≤0.001.
Predictive factors associated with relapse-free survival in the whole population.
| Univariate Analyses | Multivariate Analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Levels | HR | (95% CI) | HR | (95% CI) | ||
|
| |||||||
| Age (class) | <45 | 1 | |||||
| ≥45 | 0.67 | (0.29; 1.5) | 0.34 | ||||
| Pregnancies | 0 | 1 | |||||
| 1–3 | 0.69 | (0.29; 1.6) | 0.41 | ||||
| >3 | 0.65 | (0.18; 2.4) | 0.52 | ||||
| Menopausal status | premenopausal | 1 | |||||
| postmenopausal | 0.57 | (0.24; 1.4) | 0.21 | ||||
| Family history | 0 | 1 | |||||
| 1 | 1 | (0.34; 3) | 0.98 | ||||
| ≥2 | 1.5 | (0.44; 5.2) | 0.50 | ||||
| Clinical tumor stage | T1-T2 | 1 | |||||
| T3 | 1.2 | (0.52; 2.6) | 0.71 | ||||
| Clinical nodal status | N− | 1 | |||||
| N+ | 1.9 | (0.82; 4.5) | 0.13 | ||||
| Tumor grade | 2 | 1 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | (0.53; 29.3) | 0.18 | ||||
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| TIL levels (continuous) a | 0.99 | (0.97; 1) | 0.43 | ||||
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
| 1 | ||||
|
|
|
|
| 2.2 | (0.91; 5.2) | 0.080 | |
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||
| SUV relative variation c | 0.11 | ||||||
| SUV relative variation (class) | <−70% | 1 | |||||
| ≥−70% | 1.3 | (0.55; 2.9) | 0.59 | ||||
| TILs absolute variation | <0 | 1 | |||||
| ≥0 | 1.9 | (0.81; 4.5) | 0.14 | ||||
a Cox proportional risk hypothesis not verified as continuous variable. With the variable binned with a 20% cut-off, coefficients are as follows: HR (≥20% versus <20%, reference class) = 0.74, 95%CI (0.29; 1.8), p = 0.51. b this HR corresponds to difference of 10 units of the variable (for example, the univariate analysis reveals that a patient with post-NAC TIL levels of 25% will have 1.5 times the risk of relapse or death than that of a patient with a level of 15%). c continuous variable modelized with a degree 3 polynomial (coefficients and IC: 0.85 (0.7; 1); 1 (0.99; 1); 1 (1; 1)). p-Values were annotated as follow: *: ≤0.05; **: ≤0.01.
Predictive factors associated with RFS for the Non-pCR subcohort.
| Univariate Analyses | Multivariate Analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Levels | HR | (95% CI) | HR | (95% CI) | ||
|
| |||||||
| Age (class) | <45 | 1 | |||||
| ≥45 | 0.9 | (0.34; 2.4) | 0.84 | ||||
| Pregnancies | 0 | 1 | |||||
| 1–3 | 1.3 | (0.45; 3.7) | 0.63 | ||||
| >3 | 0.81 | (0.16; 4.2) | 0.80 | ||||
| Menopausal status | premenopausal | 1 | |||||
| postmenopausal | 0.46 | (0.16; 1.3) | 0.14 | ||||
| Family history | 0 | 1 | |||||
| 1 | 0.58 | (0.13; 2.6) | 0.47 | ||||
| ≥2 | 1 | (0.23; 4.4) | 1 | ||||
| Clinical tumor stage | T1-T2 | 1 | |||||
| T3 | 0.91 | (0.36; 2.3) | 0.85 | ||||
| Clinical nodal status | N− | 1 | |||||
| N+ | 1.4 | (0.54; 3.6) | 0.50 | ||||
| LVI | Absence | 1 | |||||
| Presence | 2.3 | (0.8; 6.4) | 0.12 | ||||
| TIL levels (continuous) | 1 | (0.99; 1) | 0.45 | ||||
|
| |||||||
| Nodal involvment | ypN− | 1 | 1 | ||||
| ypN+ | 2.6 | (0.94; 7.4) | 0.066 | 2.2 | (0.76; 6.4) | 0.15 | |
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||
| SUV relative variation | 0.99 | (0.97; 1) | 0.17 | ||||
| SUV relative variation (class) | <−70% | 1 | |||||
| ≥−70% | 0.65 | (0.22; 1.9) | 0.44 | ||||
| TILs absolute variation | <0 | 1 | |||||
| ≥0 | 1.8 | (0.67; 4.9) | 0.24 | ||||
a This HR corresponds to difference of 10 units of the variable (for example, the univariate analysis reveals that a patient with post-NAC TIL levels of 20% will have 1.6 times the risk of relapse or death than that of a patient with a level of 10%). p-Values were annotated as follow: *: ≤0.05; **: ≤0.01.