Analysis of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes reveals two new biologically different subgroups of breast ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have been demonstrated to significantly influence prognosis and response to therapy of invasive breast cancer (IBC). Thus, it has been suggested that TIL density or/and immunophenotype could serve as biomarkers for selection of IBC patients for immunotherapy. However, much less is known about significance of TILs in breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS: We retrospectively investigated TIL density and immunophenotype in 96 pure DCIS and 35 microinvasive carcinomas (miCa). TIL density was assessed on H&E-stained breast biopsy sections as the percentage of tumour stromal area occupied by TILs, and classified into 4 grades: 0 (0%-9%), 1 (10-29%), 2 (30-49%) and 3 (50%-100%). TIL immunophenotype was assessed by immunohistochemistry for CD8, CD4, FoxP3, CD38 or CD20. RESULTS: Compared to pure DCIS, miCa contained significantly more cases with TIL density grade 3 (p = 0.028). Concordantly, CD8+, CD4+ and CD38+ cells were more numerous in miCa than in pure DCIS. In the pure DCIS subgroup with TIL density grades 2 and 3, all TIL subpopulations were more numerous than in the pure DCIS with TIL density grades 0 and 1, however the ratio between T-lymphocytes (CD8+ and CD4+) and B-lymphocytes (CD20+) was significantly lower (p = 0.029). On the other side, this ratio was significantly higher in miCa, in comparison with pure DCIS having TIL density grades 2 and 3 (p = 0.017). By cluster analysis of tumour cell pathobiological features we demonstrated similarity between miCa and the pure DCIS with TIL density grades 2 and 3. The only significant difference between those two categories was in the ratio of T- to B-TILs, higher in miCa. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that TIL density level can distinguish 2 biologically different DCIS subgroups, one of which (DCIS with ≥30% TILs, the TIL-rich DCIS) is like miCa. Similarity of TIL-rich pure DCIS and miCa as well as the role of B-lymphocytes in DCIS invasiveness are worth further investigating with regards to the potential development of immunotherapy-based prevention of DCIS progression.

Is it important to adapt neoadjuvant chemotherapy to the visible clinical response? An open randomized phase II study comparing response-guided and standard treatments in HER2-negative operable breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant treatment provides a unique opportunity to evaluate individual tumor sensitivity. This study evaluated whether a response-guided strategy could improve clinical outcome compared with a standard treatment. METHODS: Overall, 264 previously untreated stage II-III operable breast cancer patients were randomized to receive either standard treatment (arm A, n = 131), consisting of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC100: 500, 100, and 500 mg/m(2), respectively, for 3 cycles) followed by docetaxel (100 mg/m(2) for 3 cycles), or adapted treatment (arm B, n = 133), beginning with 2 cycles of FEC100 and switching to docetaxel if tumor size decreased by <30% after 2 cycles or <50% after 4 cycles of FEC100 (ultrasound assessments according to World Health Organization criteria). Otherwise, FEC100 was given for six cycles before surgery. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed. RESULTS: Similar results were observed for clinical response (objective response was 54% vs 56%, p = .18), breast conservation surgery (BCS; 67% vs 68%, p = .97), and pathological complete response rate (Chevallier classification: 14% vs 11%, p = .68; Statloff classification: 16% vs 13%, p = .82) between arms A and B. Similar toxicities were observed, even with unbalanced numbers of FEC100 and docetaxel courses. CONCLUSION: Adapted and standard treatments had similar results in terms of tumor response, BCS rate, and tolerability. Further survival outcome data are expected.

Neoadjuvant FEC 100 for operable breast cancer: eight-year experience at Centre Jean Perrin.

This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of FEC 100 (epirubicin 100 mg/m2 with 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2) every 21 days as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with stage I-III primary operable breast cancer. Forty patients were treated with 6 cycles of FEC 100, followed by surgery and radiation therapy. In addition, most patients also received an adjuvant treatment for residual disease (11 chemotherapies and 31 tamoxifen). After 6 cycles of FEC 100, the overall clinical response rate of 75% (CI 95%, 61.6-88.4) was achieved, 22.5% of which were complete responses. Breast conservation was achieved in 70% of patients. A pathologic complete response was confirmed in 6 patients (15%; CI 95%, 3.9-26.1) using Chevallier's classification and in 10 patients (25%; CI 95%, 11.6-38.4) using Sataloff's classification. After a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 3 metastatic relapses were observed. The principal toxicity of FEC 100 was myelosuppression; 51.3% of patients developed grade 3/4 neutropenia. Neoadjuvant FEC 100 was both effective and well tolerated in patients with early-stage operable breast cancer.