The prognostic and predictive value of Tregs and tumor immune subtypes in postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy: a Dutch TEAM study analysis.

Evidence exists for an immunomodulatory effect of endocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive (HR+ve) breast cancer (BC). Therefore, the aim of this study was to define the prognostic and predictive value of tumor immune markers and the tumor immune profile in HR+ve BC, treated with different endocrine treatment regimens. 2,596 Dutch TEAM patients were treated with 5 years of adjuvant hormonal treatment, randomly assigned to different regimens: 5 years of exemestane or sequential treatment (2.5 years of tamoxifen-2.5 years of exemestane). Immunohistochemistry was performed for HLA class I, HLA-E, HLA-G, and FoxP3. Tumor immune subtypes (IS) (low, intermediate & high immune susceptible) were determined by the effect size of mono-immune markers on relapse rate. Patients on sequential treatment with high level of tumor-infiltrating FoxP3+ cells had significant (p = 0.019, HR 0.729, 95% CI 0.560-0.949) better OS. Significant interaction for endocrine treatment and FoxP3+ presence was seen (OS p < 0.001). Tumor IS were only of prognostic value for the sequentially endocrine-treated patients (RFP: p = 0.035, HR intermediate IS 1.420, 95% CI 0.878-2.297; HR low IS 1.657, 95% CI 1.131-2.428; BCSS: p = 0.002, HR intermediate IS 2.486, 95% CI 1.375-4.495; HR low IS 2.422, 95% CI 1.439-4.076; and OS: p = 0.005, HR intermediate IS 1.509, 95% CI 0.950-2.395; HR low IS 1.848, 95% CI 1.277-2.675). Tregs and the tumor IS presented in this study harbor prognostic value for sequentially endocrine-treated HR+ve postmenopausal BC patients, but not for solely exemestane-treated patients. Therefore, these markers could be used as a clinical risk stratification tool to guide adjuvant treatment in this BC population.

Expression of cell adhesion molecules and prognosis in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) play an important role in the process of metastasis. The prognostic value of tumour expression of N-cadherin, E-cadherin, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and epithelial CAM (Ep-CAM) was evaluated in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: A tissue microarray of the patient cohort was stained immunohistochemically for all markers and analysed by microscopy. Expression was classified into two categories, with the median score as cut-off level. For CEA, the above-median category was further subdivided in two subgroups based on staining intensity (low or high intensity). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 574 patients with breast cancer with a median follow-up of 19 years. Below-median expression of E-cadherin (P = 0·015), and above-median expression of N-cadherin (P = 0·004), Ep-CAM (P = 0·046) and CEA (P = 0·001) all resulted in a shorter relapse-free period. Multivariable analysis revealed E-cadherin and CEA to be independent prognostic variables. Combined analysis of CEA and E-cadherin expression showed a 3·6 times higher risk of relapse for patients with high-intensity expression of CEA, regardless of E-cadherin expression, compared with patients with below-median CEA and above-median E-cadherin tumour expression (hazard ratio 3·60, 95 per cent confidence interval 2·12 to 6·11; P < 0·001). An interaction was found between expression of these two CAMs (P < 0·001), suggesting a biological association. CONCLUSION: Combining E-cadherin and CEA tumour expression provides a prognostic parameter with high discriminative power that is a candidate tool for prediction of prognosis in breast cancer.