Open Access

Status and prognostic value of immunological biomarkers of breast cancer

  • Authors:
    • Chisa Murazawa
    • Nozomi Hashimoto
    • Kana Kuraishi
    • Mutsumi Motoyama
    • Shin-Ichiro Hashimoto
    • Mayumi Ikeuchi
    • Shoko Norimura
    • Toru Matsunaga
    • Koji Teramoto
    • Reiji Haba
    • Noriko Abe
    • Toshiki Yajima
    • Keiichi Kontani
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: March 8, 2023     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2023.13750
  • Article Number: 164
  • Copyright: © Murazawa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The immune response to cancer serves an important role in disease progression and patient prognosis. For triple‑negative breast cancer showing aggressive behavior, immunotherapy has a good efficacy because of the potent immunogenicity of this type of cancer. However, the dominant subtype, luminal human epidermal growth factor receptor‑2 (HER2)‑negative breast cancer, is less immunogenic. To determine whether luminal HER2‑negative cancer reacts to the anticancer immune response, the present study analyzed the status and prognostic value of the principal immunological biomarkers of breast cancer, including tumor‑infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), CD8+ T lymphocytes, the major histocompatibility complex and programmed cell death ligand‑1 (PD‑L1). The biomarkers were compared between patients with luminal HER2‑negative breast cancer and those with immunogenic subtypes including triple‑negative and HER2‑overexpressed breast cancer. A total of 71 patients with primary breast cancer were classified into the immunogenic non‑luminal (n=23) and less immunogenic luminal HER2‑negative groups (n=48) based on immunogenicity. In the luminal HER2‑negative group, compared with patients with low TIL levels, those with high TIL levels were at an advanced stage of cancer (P=0.024) and showed worse relapse‑free survival (P=0.057); however, the remaining biomarkers exhibited no association with cancer progression or prognosis. In the non‑luminal group, patients with high TIL levels showed significantly better RFS than those with low TIL levels (P=0.014). Compared with non‑luminal patients negative for PD‑L1, those positive for PD‑L1 exhibited better overall survival (P=0.064). Notably, TIL status was found to exhibit contrasting prognostic predictions based on immunogenicity. In conclusion, TILs are a strong candidate for prognostic prediction in breast cancer, regardless of the subtype. PD‑L1 is a potential candidate for prognostic prediction in immunogenic breast cancers, but not in the luminal HER2‑negative subtype.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

April-2023
Volume 25 Issue 4

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Murazawa C, Hashimoto N, Kuraishi K, Motoyama M, Hashimoto S, Ikeuchi M, Norimura S, Matsunaga T, Teramoto K, Haba R, Haba R, et al: Status and prognostic value of immunological biomarkers of breast cancer. Oncol Lett 25: 164, 2023.
APA
Murazawa, C., Hashimoto, N., Kuraishi, K., Motoyama, M., Hashimoto, S., Ikeuchi, M. ... Kontani, K. (2023). Status and prognostic value of immunological biomarkers of breast cancer. Oncology Letters, 25, 164. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2023.13750
MLA
Murazawa, C., Hashimoto, N., Kuraishi, K., Motoyama, M., Hashimoto, S., Ikeuchi, M., Norimura, S., Matsunaga, T., Teramoto, K., Haba, R., Abe, N., Yajima, T., Kontani, K."Status and prognostic value of immunological biomarkers of breast cancer". Oncology Letters 25.4 (2023): 164.
Chicago
Murazawa, C., Hashimoto, N., Kuraishi, K., Motoyama, M., Hashimoto, S., Ikeuchi, M., Norimura, S., Matsunaga, T., Teramoto, K., Haba, R., Abe, N., Yajima, T., Kontani, K."Status and prognostic value of immunological biomarkers of breast cancer". Oncology Letters 25, no. 4 (2023): 164. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2023.13750