RESUMEN
Introduction: Galectin-9, a ß-galactoside-binding protein, might be a potential target in cancer personalized therapy, but contradicting data exist regarding its prognostic significance in malignancy. Previous studies showed low or absent expression of galectin-9 on tumour cells of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC); thus, we aimed to assess the prognostic impact of its expression on tumour-associated immune cells (TAICs). Material and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 62 patients with OSCC. Tissue microarrays were constructed with chemo- and radiotherapy-naïve tissue samples and stained with anti-galectin-9 antibody. Cytoplasmic reactions in TAICs were counted as positive, and the percentage of galectin-9-positive cells was calculated. Results: The expression of galectin-9 was not associated with any demographic factors, other than diabetes mellitus type 2, for which there were lower levels of expression (p = 0.029). Higher levels of galectin-9 were associated with less locally advanced tumours (p = 0.023) and lack of nodal metastases (p = 0.014). Galectin-9 expression positively correlated with PD-L1 expression on TAICs (p = 0.009). Patients with > 50% galectin-9-positive cells were determined to have a superior 5-year overall survival (p = 0.029). Conclusions: Future studies are necessary to investigate the effects of galectin-9 on the tumour micro-environment, and galectin-9-targeted treatment may be considered, especially with its correlation to PD-L1 in OSCC.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Determining the proper therapy is challenging in breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BM) due to the variability of an individual's prognosis and the variety of treatment options available. Several prognostic tools for BC patients with BM have been proposed. Our review summarizes the current knowledge on this topic. METHODS: We searched PubMed for prognostic tools concerning BC patients with BM, published from January 1997 (since the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group developed) to December 2021. Our criteria were limited to adults with newly diagnosed BM regardless of the presence or absence of any leptomeningeal metastases. RESULTS: 31 prognostic tools were selected: 13 analyzed mixed cohorts with some BC cases and 18 exclusively analyzed BC prognostic tools. The majority of prognostic tools in BC patients with BM included: the performance status, the age at BM diagnosis, the number of BM (rarely the volume), the primary tumor phenotype/genotype and the extracranial metastasis status as a result of systemic therapy. The prognostic tools differed in their specific cut-off values. CONCLUSION: Prognostic tools have variable precision in determining the survival of BC patients with BM. Advances in local and systemic treatment significantly affect survival, therefore, it is necessary to update the survival indices used depending on the type and period of treatment.
RESUMEN
Estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors and HER2 are crucial in the assessment of breast cancer specimens due to their prognostic and predictive significance. Single hormone receptor-positive breast cancers are less common and their clinical course is less favorable than ER(+)/PgR(+) tumors. Their molecular features, especially microRNA (miRNA) profiles, have not been investigated to date. Tumor specimens from 36 chemonaive breast cancer patients with known ER and PgR status (18 ER(+)/PgR(-) and 18 ER(-)/PgR(+) cases) were enrolled to the study. The expression of 829 miRNAs was evaluated with nCounter Human v3 miRNA expression Assay (NanoString). miRNAs differentiating between ER/PgR/HER2 phenotypes were selected based on fold change (FC) calculated for the mean normalized counts of each probe in compared groups. The differences were estimated with Student's T-test or Two-Way ANOVA (considering also the HER2 status). The results were validated using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset. Following quality control of raw data, fourcases were excluded due to low sample quality, leaving 14 ER(+)/PgR(-) and 18 ER(-)/PgR(+) cases. After correction for multiple comparisons, we did not find miRNA signature differentiating between ER(-)/PgR(+) and ER(+)/PgR(-) breast cancers. However, a trend for differing expression (p-value ≤ 0.05; FDR > 0.2; ANOVA) in eight miRNAs was observed. The ER(+)/PgR(-) group demonstrated elevated levels of four miRNAs-miR-30a-5p, miR-29c-3p, miR-141-3p and miR-423-5p-while the ER(-)/PgR(+) tumors were enriched in another four miRNAs-miR-514b-5p, miR-424-5p, miR-495-3p, and miR-92a-3p. For one of the miRNAs-miR-29c-3p-the association with the ER(+)/PgR(-) phenotype was confirmed in the TCGA cohort (p-value = 0.024; T-test). HER2 amplification/overexpression in the NanoString cohort was related to significant differences observed in 33 miRNA expression levels (FDR ≤ 0.2; ANOVA). The association with HER2 status was confirmed in the TCGA cohort for four miRNAs (miR-1180-3p, miR-223-3p, miR-30d-5p, and miR-195-5p). The main differences in miRNA expression amongst single hormone receptor-positive tumors were identified according to their HER2 status. However, ER(+)/PgR(-) cases tended to express higher levels of miRNAs associated with ER-positivity (miR-30a-5p, miR-29c-3p, miR-141-3p), whereas ER(-)/PgR(+) cancers showed elevated levels of miRNAs characteristic for double- and triple-negative tumors (miR-92a-3p, miR-424-5p). Further studies are necessary to comprehensively analyze miRNA signatures characteristic of ER(-)/PgR(+) and ER(+)/PgR(-) tumors.
