| Literature DB >> 36133828 |
Aya Elmahs1, Ghada Mohamed2,3, Mostafa Salem4, Dina Omar4, Amany Mohamed Helal5,6, Nahed Soliman1.
Abstract
To avoid unnecessary neoadjuvant chemotherapy in case anticipating a poor therapy response, it is essential to find the pathological parameters that would predict pathological complete response or at least a decrease in tumor burden following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The purpose of this study is to investigate the hypothesis that tumor infiltrating lymphocytes can predict the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and to find the Ki67 cutoff value that best predicts the benefit of chemotherapy. 153 cases of breast cancer were chosen, based on their molecular subtype: triple negative subtype (77) and luminal, HER2-ve subtype (76). Histopathological assessment of pretherapy core biopsies was conducted to assess variable pathological parameters including TILs rates with the aid of immunohistochemical staining for CD20 and CD3. Moreover, core biopsies were stained for Ki67, and the findings were compared to the residual cancer burden following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. On analyzing and contrasting the two groups, a significant association between molecular subtype and pathological complete response was confirmed, while tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in either group had no effect on therapy response. We used receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to determine that a cutoff of 36% for Ki67 is the most accurate value to predict complete therapy response.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36133828 PMCID: PMC9484975 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2597889
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Breast Cancer ISSN: 2090-3189
Distribution of demographic data, pathological features collected from pretherapy core biopsies and parameters investigated in the posttherapy specimens.
| Count (%) | |
|---|---|
| Laterality | |
| Rt | 69 (45.1%) |
| Lt | 84 (54.9%) |
| Histological type | |
| IDC+ | 123 (80.4%) |
| Non-IDC | 30 (19.6%) |
| Histological type details | |
| IDC | 123 (80.4%) |
| ILC | 11 (7.2%) |
| Medullary | 9 (5.9%) |
| Metaplastic | 5 (3.3%) |
| Tubulolobular | 2 (1.3%) |
| Grade | |
| I | 6 (3.9%) |
| II | 86 (56.2%) |
| III | 61 (39.9%) |
| LVI+ | |
| Yes | 89 (58.2%) |
| No | 64 (41.8%) |
| M. subtype+ | |
| Luminal | 76 (49.7%) |
| TNBC | 77 (50.3%) |
| Lymphocyte groups | |
| Lymphocyte poor | 27 (17.6%) |
| Lymphocyte intermediate | 66 (43.1%) |
| Lymphocyte predominant | 60 (39.2%) |
| Post-neoadjuvant T stage+ | |
| T0 | 36 (23.5%) |
| T1 | 60 (39.2%) |
| T2 | 51 (33.3%) |
| T3 | 5 (3.3%) |
| T4 | 1 (0.7%) |
| N stage+ | |
| N0 | 66 (43.1%) |
| N1 | 34 (22.2%) |
| N2 | 31 (20.3%) |
| N3 | 22 (14.4%) |
| Postneoadjuvant RCB | |
| RCB 0 | 29 (19.0%) |
| RCB I | 5 (3.3%) |
| RCB II | 50 (32.7%) |
| RCB III | 69 (45.1%) |
| Postneoadjuvant pCR groups | |
| PCR group | 29 (19.0%) |
| Non-PCR group | 124 (81.0%) |
+IDC: invasive duct carcinoma; +ILC: invasive lobular carcinoma; +LVI: lymphovascular invasion; M. subtype: molecular subtype; N stage: nodal stage; +pCR: pathological complete response; RCB: residual cancer burden; T stage: tumor stage; +TNBC: triple negative breast cancer.
Figure 1(a–d) Case (1) IDC, grade 3 (lymphocyte predominant); 10% ITL, 70% SL (H&E 40×), (b) Ki67 IHC (40×) proliferation index 40%, (c) CD3 IHC (40×), 60%, (d) CD20 IHC (40×), 40%. (e–h) Case [2] IDC, grade 3 (intermediate group); 20% ITL, 40% SL (H&E) (10×), (f) Ki67 IHC (10×) proliferation index 60%, (g) CD3 IHC (40×), 60%, (h) CD20 IHC (40×), 20%. (i–l) Case [3] IDC, grade 2 (lymphocyte poor); 5% ITL, 10% SL (H&E (40×), (j) Ki67 IHC (40×) proliferation index 5%, (k) CD3 IHC (40×), 70%, (l) CD20 IHC (40×), 10%. (m–p) Case [4] Medullary carcinoma, grade 3 (lymphocyte predominant); 30% I1L, 80% SL (H&E (40×), (n) Ki67 IHC (40×) proliferation index 90%, (o) CD3 IHC (40×), 60%, (p) CD20 IHC (40×), 30%. (q–t) Case [5] ILC, grade 2 (intermediate group); 5% ITL, 40% SL (H&E 10×), (r) Ki67 IHC (40×) proliferation index 50%, (s) CD3 IHC (40×), 50%, (t) CD20 IHC (40×), 5%.
Association (count (%)) between various parameters of 153 breast cancer cases and RCB classes (chi-square test).
| Breast cancer parameters | RCB |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCR | Non-PCR groups | ||||
| RCB 0 | RCB I | RCB II | RCB III | ||
| Count (%) | Count (%) | Count (%) | Count (%) | ||
| Type | |||||
| IDC+ | 23 (18.7%) | 4 (3.3%) | 44 (35.8%) | 52 (42.3%) | 0.340 |
| Non-IDC | 6 (20.0%) | 1 (3.3%) | 6 (20.0%) | 17 (56.7%) | |
| Grade | |||||
| I | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (50.0%) | 3 (50.0%) | <0.001∗ |
| II | 10 (11.6%) | 3 (3.5%) | 21 (24.4%) | 52 (60.5%) | |
| III | 19 (31.1%) | 2 (3.3%) | 26 (42.6%) | 14 (23.0%) | |
| LVI+ | |||||
| Yes | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 21 (23.6%) | 67 (75.3%) | <0.001∗ |
| No | 28 (43.8%) | 5 (7.8%) | 29 (45.3%) | 2 (3.1%) | |
| M. subtype+ | |||||
| Luminal | 2 (2.6%) | 1 (1.3%) | 21 (27.6%) | 52 (68.4%) | <0.001∗ |
| TNBC+ | 27 (35.1%) | 4 (5.2%) | 29 (37.7%) | 17 (22.1%) | |
| Lymphocyte groups | |||||
| Lymphocyte poor | 4 (14.8%) | 1 (3.7%) | 9 (33.3%) | 13 (48.1%) | 0.623 |
| Intermediate group | 9 (13.6%) | 2 (3.0%) | 22 (33.3%) | 33 (50.0%) | |
| Lymphocytic predominant | 16 (26.7%) | 2 (3.3%) | 19 (31.7%) | 23 (38.3%) | |
∗ denotes statistically significant. +IDC: invasive duct carcinoma; +LVI: lymphovascular invasion; +M. subtype: molecular subtype; +TNBC: triple negative breast cancer.
Association count (%) between TIL and PCR in the 2 molecular subtypes among 153 breast cancer cases (chi-square test).
| Luminal, HER2-ve subtype | Posttherapy groups |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCR group | Non-PCR group | ||
| Count (%) | Count (%) | ||
| Lymphocyte groups | |||
| Lymphocyte poor | 0 (0.0%) | 16 (21.6%) | 1 |
| Intermediate group | 1 (50.0%) | 38 (51.4%) | |
| Lymphocytic predominant | 1 (50.0%) | 20 (27.0%) | |
| TN+ subtype | |||
| Lymphocyte groups | |||
| Lymphocyte poor | 4 (14.8%) | 7 (14.0%) | 0.803 |
| Intermediate group | 8 (29.6%) | 19 (38.0%) | |
| Lymphocytic predominant | 15 (55.6%) | 24 (48.0%) | |
∗ denotes statistically significant. + TNBC: triple negative subtype.
Logistic regression to analyze role of molecular subtype.
|
| OR | 95% C.I | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| PCR | ||||
| Lymphocyte groups | 0.711 | |||
| Lymphocyte groups (intermediate group) | 0.866 | 0.886 | 0.219 | 3.583 |
| Lymphocyte groups (lymphocytic predominant) | 0.673 | 1.331 | 0.353 | 5.015 |
| M. subtype+ (TN+) | <0.001∗ | 18.515 | 4.169 | 82.217 |
∗ denotes statistically significant. +M. subtype: molecular subtype; +TNBC: triple negative subtype.
Relation between quantitative parameters and RCB classes (Mann–Whitney test).
| RCB |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCR | Non-pCR | ||||
| PCR | RCB I | RCB II | RCB III | ||
| Median (min-max) | Median (min-max) | Median (min-max) | Median (min-max) | ||
| Ki67% | 60 (5.00-95.00) | 60 (2-90) | 40 (3-98) | 20 (5-80) | 0.002∗ |
| CD3 T cells % | 60 (40-90) | 80 (40-80) | 60 (2-95) | 70 (10-90) | 0.701 |
| CD20 B cells % | 10 (0-60) | 10 (2-20) | 20 (0-50) | 20 (0- 55) | 0.735 |
∗ denotes statistically significant.
Figure 2Correlation between ITL and SL using Spearman correlation coefficient.
Figure 3ROC curve analysis to define the cut of point of Ki67%.
Logistic regression analysis defines triple negative subtype and negative lymphovascular invasion as best predictors of pCR.
|
| OR | 95% C.I. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| PCR | ||||
| M. subtype (TNBC) | 0.025∗ | 6.189 | 1.262 | 30.343 |
| Negative LVI | 0.001∗ | 35.392 | 4.458 | 281.000 |
∗ denotes statistically significant. +LVI: lymphovascular invasion; +TNBC: triple negative breast cancer.
Figure 4A guidance plan to define whether a breast cancer patient is candidate for neoadjuvant chemotherapy or not.