Expression of Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) in Posttreatment Primary Inflammatory Breast Cancers and Clinical Implications

Deciphering the molecular biology of inflammatory breast cancer through molecular characterization of patient samples and preclinical models

Inflammatory breast cancer is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer with dismal patient prognosis and a unique clinical presentation. In the past two decades, molecular profiling technologies have been used in order to gain insight into the molecular biology of IBC and to search for possible targets for treatment. Although a gene signature that accurately discriminates between IBC and nIBC patient samples and preclinical models was identified, the overall genomic and transcriptomic differences are small and ambiguous, mainly due to the limited sample sizes of the evaluated patient series and the failure to correct for confounding effects of the molecular subtypes. Nevertheless, data collected over the past 20 years by independent research groups increasingly support the existence of several IBC-specific biological characteristics. In this review, these features are classified as established, emerging and conceptual hallmarks based on the level of evidence reported in the literature. In addition, a synoptic model is proposed that integrates all hallmarks and that can explain how cancer cell intrinsic mechanisms (i.e. NF-κB activation, genomic instability, MYC-addiction, TGF-β resistance, adaptive stress response, chromatin remodeling, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition) can contribute to the establishment of the dynamic immune microenvironment associated with IBC. It stands to reason that future research projects are needed to further refine (parts of) this model and to investigate its clinical translatability.

The immunogram of inflammatory breast cancer

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is the most aggressive and fatal clinical presentation of breast cancer. Despite the term "inflammatory", based on the clinical presentation, IBC is biologically driven by an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). Whether IBC can be switched into an immune-inflamed TME by immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is a matter of debate. Presently, measurable biomarkers of IBC-TME have never been synthetized into a comprehensive portray of the immune-milieu (i.e., an immunogram), describing the immune-vulnerability of IBC and potentially predicting the response to ICIs. We propose an immunogram for IBC, based on preclinical and clinical studies, including six parameters: the presence of immune-effector cells, of immune-suppressive cells and of immune checkpoints, the general immune status, the activation of immune-suppressive pathways, the tumor foreignness. The IBC immunogram suggests the existence of a preexisting immune TME that is suppressed by mechanisms of immune-escape but might be restored by ICIs. The combination of chemotherapy and ICIs in patients with IBC is based on a strong biological rationale. However, the design and the development of clinical trials assessing the incorporation of ICIs raise many methodological and practical issues. In parallel with the further comprehension of IBC biology, the prospective validation and integration of biomarkers predictive of response to ICIs are warranted.

Relationship between PD-L1 expression and prognostic factors in high-risk cutaneous squamous and basal cell carcinoma

This study aimed to investigate the programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and its relationship with prognostic factors in tumors that are not in the head and neck region and are therefore relatively less exposed to the sun. This retrospective cross-sectional study included 25 invasive cSCC and 42 BCC cases with a diameter ≥ 2 cm located outside the head and neck region from 2010 to 2018. The biopsy samples were examined based on the membranous PD-L1 (22C3 clone) staining. Staining results were scored as follows: 0, no staining (negative); 1, < 10% PD-L1 positivity of tumor cells; and 2, ≥ 10% PD-L1 positivity of tumor cells. PD-L1 positivity was not seen in any BCC cases, whereas 11 (44%) of cSCC cases were PD-L1 positive. No significant relationship was observed between PD-L1 expression and prognostic parameters, including tumor diameter, tumor depth, and lymphovascular or perineural invasion in the cSCC group. PD-L1 expression was not associated with prognostic factors in the early stages of BCC and SCC located outside the head and neck region. Therefore, investigating the PD-L1 expression seems to be more relevant in patients with advanced-stage disease.

Prognostic Value of Programmed Death Ligand-1 Expression in Solid Tumors Irrespective of Immunotherapy Exposure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) pathway, which plays a crucial role in cancer immune surveillance, is the target of several approved immunotherapeutic agents and is used as a predictive biomarker in some solid tumors. However, its use as a prognostic marker (i.e., regardless of therapy used) is not established clearly with available data demonstrating inconsistent prognostic impact of PD-L1 expression in solid tumors.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of electronic databases and identified publications exploring the effect of PD-L1 expression on overall survival and/or disease-free survival. Hazard ratios were pooled in a meta-analysis using generic inverse-variance and random-effects modeling. We used the Deeks method to explore subgroup differences based on disease site, stage of disease, and method of PD-L1 quantification.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Programmed cell death ligand-1 expression was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.26-1.39; p < 0.001). There was significant heterogeneity between disease sites (subgroup p = 0.002) with pancreatic, hepatocellular, and genitourinary cancers associated with the highest magnitude of adverse outcomes. Programmed cell death ligand-1 was also associated with worse overall disease-free survival (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.30; p < 0.001). Stage of disease did not significantly affect the results (subgroup p = 0.52), nor did the method of quantification via immunohistochemistry or messenger RNA (subgroup p = 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

High expression of PD-L1 is associated with worse survival in solid tumors albeit with significant heterogeneity among tumor types. The effect is consistent in early-stage and metastatic disease and is not sensitive to method of PD-L1 quantification. These data can provide additional information for the counseling of patients with cancer about prognosis.

Differential effects of CD20+ B cells and PD-L1+ immune cells on pathologic complete response and outcome: comparison between inflammatory breast cancer and locally advanced breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

This study evaluated epidemiologic and immune factors associated with pathologic complete response (pCR), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) outcomes in inflammatory (IBC) and locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) patients.

METHODS

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and CD20+ B-cell frequencies (CD20+), and PD-L1 expression on tumor (PD-L1+carcinoma cells) and immune (PD-L1+TILs) cells were analyzed by immunohistochemistry along with clinicopathologic factors as modifiers of pCR and outcomes in 221 IBC and 162 LABC patients. Analysis included Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

IBC and LABC display similar levels of TILs, CD20+, and combined CD20+ and PD-L1+TILs (CD20+PD-L1+TILs), while LABC contained more PD-L1+TILs and PD-L1+ carcinoma cells. Absence of lymphovascular involvement, high TILs, PD-L1+ carcinoma cells, and combined CD20+ and PD-L1+ carcinoma cells correlated with pCR in IBC and LABC patients. High PD-L1+TILs correlated with pCR only in LABC; less lymph node involvement at diagnosis, CD20+ and CD20+PD-L1+TILs correlated with pCR only in IBC (P < 0.04, all comparisons). Achievement of pCR in IBC and LABC patients correlated with BCSS and DFS (P < 0.02). In multivariate analyses, pCR remained an independent prognostic factor of improved DFS in IBC and LABC patients, but of BCSS in only LABC. CD20+PD-L1+TILs remained an independent prognostic factor of improved DFS and BCSS only in IBC.

CONCLUSION

CD20+PD-L1+TILs are an independent prognostic biomarker of improved outcomes in IBC, but not LABC. Selecting IBC patients by CD20 and PD-L1 status could stratify patients and potentially identify those in whom activating CD20 agents and anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy could be explored.

Progress for Immunotherapy in Inflammatory Breast Cancer and Emerging Barriers to Therapeutic Efficacy

Simple Summary

Despite recent advances in the treatment of other breast cancer subtypes, inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) remains a significant clinical challenge, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 39%. Though immunotherapy has shown remarkable efficacy in other difficult-to-treat cancers, such approaches have yet to show substantial therapeutic efficacy in IBC. Here, we summarize the known immune composition of IBC tumors, as well as past and present efforts to advance immunotherapy in the treatment of IBC.

Abstract

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare and aggressive subtype of breast cancer that carries a particularly poor prognosis. Despite the efficacy of immunotherapy in other difficult to treat forms of breast cancer, progress for immunotherapy in IBC has been difficult. Though immunotherapy has been under clinical investigation in IBC since the 1970s, few approaches have shown significant therapeutic efficacy, and no immunotherapy regimens are currently used in the treatment of IBC. Here, we provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the immune composition of IBC tumors, clinical and basic science evidence describing the role for immune checkpoints such as PD-L1 in IBC pathobiology, as well as past and present attempts to advance ICIs in the treatment of IBC.

Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of programmed cell death ligand 1 expression in patients diagnosed with breast cancer: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty exists regarding the clinical relevance of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Observational studies that compared high versus low expression of PD-L1 on breast cancer cells were identified. Log hazard ratios (HRs) for disease-free and overall survival and their standard errors were calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves or Cox regression analyses, and pooled using the inverse-variance method. Dichotomous variables were pooled as odds ratios (ORs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies with 19 870 patients were included; 14 404 patients were classified as having low and 4975 high PD-L1 expression. High PD-L1 was associated with achieving a pathological complete response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 3.30, 95 per cent confidence interval 1.19 to 9.16; P < 0.01; I2 = 85 per cent). Low PD-L1 expression was associated with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (OR 3.98, 1.81 to 8.75; P < 0.001; I2 = 96 per cent) and luminal (OR 14.93, 6.46 to 34.51; P < 0.001; I2 = 99 per cent) breast cancer subtypes. Those with low PD-L1 had favourable overall survival rates (HR 1.30, 1.05 to 1.61; P = 0.02; I2 = 85 per cent).

CONCLUSION

Breast cancers with high PD-L1 expression are associated with aggressive clinicopathological and immunohistochemical characteristics and are more likely to achieve a pathological complete response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. These breast cancers are, however, associated with worse overall survival outcomes.

Update on systemic treatment for newly diagnosed inflammatory breast cancer

Background

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare and aggressive disease, accounting for 2-4% of new cases of breast cancer. Owing to its aggressive nature, IBC represent approximately 8-10% of breast cancer deaths. Management of IBC requires a multidisciplinary team for decision-making involving a composite of systemic treatment, surgery, and radiation, or "Trimodality Treatment." Because of the rarity of the disease, systemic therapy of IBC traditionally has been extrapolated from non-IBC clinical trials.

Aim of Review

The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the development of systemic treatment of IBC from the past to the present by focusing on IBC clinical trials, including chemotherapy and targeted therapies.

Key Scientific Concepts of Review

We discuss their effects on pathologic complete response (pCR) and survival outcomes, the predictive markers, and the adverse events of these therapies. Further, we summarized the current standard treatment stratified by molecular subtypes based on clinical data. Finally, we discuss the future trend of systemic therapy, including immunotherapy and ongoing IBC clinical trials.

Prognostic value of programmed cell death ligand-1 expression in breast cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The correlation between programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) which may affect T cell to form the immune tolerance and breast cancer (BC) still maintains to be uncovered. This meta-analysis was about to explore PD-L1 expression as well as its prognostic role in BC.

METHODS

First of all, we performed 3 databases: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to explore publications between January of 2015 and January of 2020. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were conducted: immunohistochemistry shall be used to detect target molecule expression and at least 1 survival indicator and related data we need should be included. The hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval were pooled related with survival as well as clinicopathological parameters. The effects of PD-L1 in differed aspects like sample size and age of each cohort were demonstrated by subgroup analyses as well as sensitivity analyses which may complain the potential source of heterogeneity. P < .05 indicates factors were charge of the heterogeneity of prognosis. Begg and Egger tests were used to identify publication bias.

RESULTS

We identified 12 studies containing a blanket of 4336 patients with BC for whom PD-L1 positive tumor cells were related with higher tumor stage, lymph node metastasis, estrogen receptor negativity, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positivity, luminal B and triple negative BC molecular subtype and high nuclear-associated antigen Ki- 67 expression. Meanwhile, compared to patients with PD-L1 negative expression, PD-L1 positivity associated with worse overall survival (Hazard ratio [HR]:1.43; 95% CI:0.98-2.10; P < .001) and might have no obvious tight connection with disease free survival (HR:1.40; 95% CI:1.11-1.78; P = .101) and recurrence free survival (HR:2.36; 95% CI:1.04-5.34; P = .145). The outcome of the meta-analysis was confirmed to be credible by sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was not existed indicated (P = .640).

CONCLUSION

Positive PD-L1 expression has a worse clinical outcome in patients with BC demonstrated by our meta-analysis. Being urgent to catch attention to the role of PD-L1 in BC, it may be considered as prognostic marker of immune microenvironment for improving therapy efficacy.

Biomarkers for Inflammatory Breast Cancer: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Utility

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare and highly aggressive subtype of advanced breast cancer. The aggressive behavior, resistance to chemotherapy, angiogenesis, and high metastatic potential are key intrinsic characteristics of IBC caused by many specific factors. Pathogenesis and behavior of IBC are closely related to tumor surrounding inflammatory and immune cells, blood vessels, and extracellular matrix, which are all components of the tumor microenvironment (TME). The tumor microenvironment has a crucial role in the local immune r09esponse. The communication between intrinsic and extrinsic components of IBC and the abundance of cytokines and chemokines in the TME strongly contribute to the aggressiveness and high angiogenic potential of this tumor. Critical modes of interaction are cytokine-mediated communication and direct intercellular contact between cancer cells and tumor microenvironment with a variety of pathway crosstalk. This review aimed to summarize current knowledge of predictive and prognostic biomarkers in IBC.

Comparison of three scoring methods using the FDA-approved 22C3 immunohistochemistry assay to evaluate PD-L1 expression in breast cancer and their association with clinicopathologic factors

BACKGROUND

In the evaluation of PD-L1 expression to select patients for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment, uniform guidelines that account for different immunohistochemistry assays, different cell types and different cutoff values across tumor types are lacking. Data on how different scoring methods compare in breast cancer are scant.

METHODS

Using FDA-approved 22C3 diagnostic immunohistochemistry assay, we retrospectively evaluated PD-L1 expression in 496 primary invasive breast tumors that were not exposed to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment and compared three scoring methods (TC: invasive tumor cells; IC: tumor-infiltrating immune cells; TCIC: a combination of tumor cells and immune cells) in expression frequency and association with clinicopathologic factors.

RESULTS

In the entire cohort, positive PD-L1 expression was observed in 20% of patients by TCIC, 16% by IC, and 10% by TC, with a concordance of 87% between the three methods. In the triple-negative breast cancer patients, positive PD-L1 expression was observed in 35% by TCIC, 31% by IC, and 16% by TC, with a concordance of 76%. Associations between PD-L1 and clinicopathologic factors were investigated according to receptor groups and whether the patients had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The three scoring methods showed differences in their associations with clinicopathologic factors in all subgroups studied. Positive PD-L1 expression by IC was significantly associated with worse overall survival in patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and showed a trend for worse overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival in triple-negative patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Positive PD-L1 expression by TCIC and TC also showed trends for worse survival in different subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that the three scoring methods with a 1% cutoff are different in their sensitivity for PD-L1 expression and their associations with clinicopathologic factors. Scoring by TCIC is the most sensitive way to identify PD-L1-positive breast cancer by immunohistochemistry. As a prognostic marker, our study suggests that PD-L1 is associated with worse clinical outcome, most often shown by the IC score; however, the other scores may also have clinical implications in some subgroups. Large clinical trials are needed to test the similarities and differences of these scoring methods for their predictive values in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy.

PD-L1/PD-1 axis as a potent therapeutic target in breast cancer

Although both the incidence and the mortality rate of breast cancer is rising, there is no potent and practical option for the treatment of these patients, particularly in advanced stages. One of the most critical challenges for treatment is the presence of complicated and extensive tumor escape mechanisms in the tumor microenvironment. Immune checkpoint molecules are of the main immunosuppressive mechanisms used by cancerous cells to block anti-cancer immune responses. Among these molecules, PD-1 (Programmed cell death) and PD-L1 (programmed cell death-ligand 1) have been considered as worthy therapeutic targets for breast cancer therapy. In this review, we intend to discuss the immunobiology and signaling of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis and highlight its importance as a worthy therapeutic target in breast cancer. We believe that the prognostic value of PD-L1 depends on the breast cancer subtype. Moreover, the combination of PD-1/PD-L1 targeting with immune-stimulating vaccines can be considered as an effective therapeutic strategy in breast cancer.

PD-L1 Acts as a Promising Immune Marker to Predict the Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) is a negative immune stimulatory molecule that plays a key role in tumor immune escape. We analyzed the clinical value of PD-L1-positive expression in predicting the outcome of breast cancer patients and to establish its role as new biomarker to guide precise treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PubMed and Embase were searched for all original English-language articles published before January 30, 2019; all articles reported the predictive and prognostic implications of PD-L1⁺ in breast cancer. Data were analyzed by Stata SE 12 software.

RESULTS

The PD-L1⁺ rate varied from 19.7% to 77.6% in breast cancer patients. Specifically, patients with estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-positive, luminal A, luminal B, and HER2⁺ disease subtypes had lower PD-L1 expression, while the PD-L1⁺ percentages did not follow any trend in patients with Ki-67⁺, normal-like, HER2 overexpression, and basal-like subtype. In addition, PD-L1⁺ was observed to be associated with significantly improved pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio = 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-3.01; P < .05). Using PD-L1⁺ to predict pathologic response showed obvious accuracy. However, PD-L1⁺ did not show significant association with risk of higher recurrence or metastasis, or higher death risk (hazard ratio = 0.91, P = .655; hazard ratio = 1.00, P = .995).

CONCLUSION

PD-L1⁺ is a promising immune parameter with the potential to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but it cannot indicate a higher risk of death, recurrence, or metastasis.

Targeted immunotherapy with a checkpoint inhibitor in combination with chemotherapy: A new clinical paradigm in the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer

The treatment of several solid and hematologic malignancies with immune checkpoint inhibitors (against programmed death receptor-1/ligand-1 [PD-1/PD-L1]) has dramatically changed the cancer treatment paradigm. However, no checkpoint inhibitors were previously approved for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), a difficult-to-treat disease with a high unmet therapeutic need. Based on IMpassion130 clinical trial (NCT02425891), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently granted an accelerated approval for atezolizumab (TECENTRIQ®), a monoclonal antibody drug targeting PD-L1, plus chemotherapy (Abraxane; nab®-Paclitaxel) for the treatment of adults with PD-L1-positive, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic TNBC. The FDA has also approved the Ventana diagnostic antibody SP142 as a companion test for selecting TNBC patients for treatment with atezolizumab. In the present review, we briefly discuss the importance of this breakthrough as the first cancer immunotherapy regimen to be approved for the management of breast cancer.

Prognostic and clinicopathological value of PD-L1 expression in primary breast cancer: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association between PD-L1 expression (PD-L1+) and clinicopathological characteristics and effect on prognosis in primary breast cancer (PBC).

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases was conducted in November 2018. Studies detecting PD-L1 using immunohistochemistry, and concerning its prognostic or clinicopathological significance in PBC were included. The HR with 95% CI for survival, and the events for clinicopathological features were pooled.

RESULTS

Forty-seven studies were included, with a total of 14,367 PBC patients. PD-L1+ tumor cells (TCs) were associated with ductal carcinomas, large tumor size, histological Grade 3 tumors, high Ki-67, ER and PR negative, and triple-negative breast cancer; and also, related to high tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and PD-1 expression. PD-L1+ TCs were significantly associated with shorter disease-free survival (DFS, HR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.21-1.70, P < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS, HR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.14-2.20, P = 0.006). And the HRs of PD-L1+ TCs on DFS and OS were higher (1.48 and 1.70, respectively) and homogeneous when using whole tissue section, compared with tumor microarrays. However, PD-L1+ TILs related to better DFS (HR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.28-0.73, P = 0.001) and OS (HR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.63, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

PD-L1 expression on TCs associates with high-risk clinicopathological parameters and poor prognosis in PBC patients, while PD-L1+ TILs may relate to a better survival. Comprehensive assessment of TCs and TILs is required when evaluating the clinical relevance of PD-L1 expression in future studies.

Prognostic Implications of PD-L1 Expression in Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Immunohistochemistry and Pooled Analysis of Transcriptomic Data

PURPOSE

Conflicting data have been reported on the prognostic value of PD-L1 protein and gene expression in breast cancer.Experimental Design: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched, and data were extracted independently by two researchers. Outcomes included pooled PD-L1 protein positivity in tumor cells, immune cells, or both, per subtype and per antibody used, and its prognostic value for disease-free and overall survival. A pooled gene expression analysis of 39 publicly available transcriptomic datasets was also performed.

RESULTS

Of the initial 4,184 entries, 38 retrospective studies fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria. The overall pooled PD-L1 protein positivity rate was 24% (95% CI, 15%-33%) in tumor cells and 33% (95% CI, 14%- 56%) in immune cells. PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells was prognostic for shorter overall survival (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.07-2.46; P = 0.02); there was significant heterogeneity (I² = 80%, P _{heterogeneity} < 0.001). In addition, higher PD-L1 gene expression predicted better survival in multivariate analysis in the entire population (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.90; P < 0.001 for OS) and in basal-like tumors (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.80; P < 0.001 for OS; P _interaction 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The largest to our knowledge meta-analysis on the subject informs on PD-L1 protein positivity rates and its prognostic value in breast cancer. Standardization is needed prior to routine implementation. PD-L1 gene expression is a promising prognostic factor, especially in basal-like breast cancer. Discrepant prognostic information might be related to PD-L1 gene expression in the stroma.

Poor Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Correlates with Mast Cell Infiltration in Inflammatory Breast Cancer

Our understanding is limited concerning the tumor immune microenvironment of inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), an aggressive form of primary cancer with low rates of pathologic complete response to current neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimens. We retrospectively identified pretreatment (N = 86) and matched posttreatment tissue (N = 27) from patients with stage III or de novo stage IV IBC who received NAC followed by a mastectomy. Immune profiling was performed including quantification of lymphoid and myeloid infiltrates by IHC and T-cell repertoire analysis. Thirty-four of 86 cases in this cohort (39.5%) achieved a pathologic complete response. Characterization of the tumor microenvironment revealed that having a lower pretreatment mast cell density was significantly associated with achieving a pathologic complete response to NAC (P = 0.004), with responders also having more stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (P = 0.035), CD8⁺ T cells (P = 0.047), and CD20⁺ B cells (P = 0.054). Spatial analysis showed close proximity of mast cells to CD8⁺ T cells, CD163⁺ monocytes/macrophages, and tumor cells when pathologic complete response was not achieved. PD-L1 positivity on tumor cells was found in fewer than 2% of cases and on immune cells in 27% of cases, but with no correlation to response. Our results highlight the strong association of mast cell infiltration with poor response to NAC, suggesting a mechanism of treatment resistance and a potential therapeutic target in IBC. Proximity of mast cells to immune and tumor cells may suggest immunosuppressive or tumor-promoting interactions of these mast cells.

Infiltrating stromal immune cells in inflammatory breast cancer are associated with an improved outcome and increased PD-L1 expression

Background

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare and rapidly progressive form of invasive breast cancer. The aim of this study was to explore the clinical evolution, stromal tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTIL) infiltration and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in a large IBC cohort.

Patients and methods

Data were collected prospectively from patients with IBC as part of an international collaborative effort since 1996. In total, 143 patients with IBC starting treatment between June 1996 and December 2016 were included. Clinicopathological variables were collected, and sTIL were scored by two pathologists on standard H&E stained sections. PD-L1 expression was assessed using a validated PD-L1 (SP142) assay. A validation cohort of 64 patients with IBC was used to test our findings.

Results

Survival outcomes of IBC remained poor with a 5-year overall survival (OS) of 45.6%. OS was significantly better in patients with primary non-metastatic disease who received taxane-containing (neo)adjuvant therapy (P = 0.01), had a hormone receptor-positive tumour (P = 0.001) and had lower cN stage at diagnosis (P = 0.001). PD-L1 positivity on immune cells (42.9%) was higher in IBC than in non-IBC in both our patient samples and the validation cohort. Furthermore, PD-L1 expression predicted pCR (P = 0.002) and correlated with sTIL infiltration (P < 0.001). sTIL infiltration of more than 10% of the stroma was a significant predictor of improved OS (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27–0.81, P = 0.006) in a multivariate model.

Conclusions

IBC is characterised by poor survival and high PD-L1 immunoreactivity on sTIL. This suggests a role for PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of IBC. Furthermore, we showed that PD-L1 expression predicts response to neo-adjuvant therapy and that sTIL have prognostic significance in IBC.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13058-019-1108-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The combined presence of CD20 + B cells and PD-L1 + tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in inflammatory breast cancer is prognostic of improved patient outcome

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to evaluate protein expression of PD-L1 and CD20 as prognostic biomarkers of patient outcome in inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) samples.

METHODS

PD-L1 and CD20 protein expression was measured by immunohistochemistry in 221 pretreatment IBC biopsies. PD-L1 was assessed in tumor cells (PD-L1⁺ tumor cells) and tumor stromal infiltrating lymphocytes (PD-L1⁺ TILs); CD20 was scored in tumor-infiltrating B cells. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used for survival analysis.

RESULTS

PD-L1⁺ tumor cells, PD-L1⁺ TILs, and CD20⁺ TILs were found in 8%, 66%, and 62% of IBC, respectively. PD-L1⁺ tumor cells strongly correlated with high TILs, pathological complete response (pCR), CD20⁺ TILs, but marginally with breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS, P = 0.057). PD-L1⁺ TILs strongly correlated with high TILs, CD20⁺ TILs, and longer disease-free survival (DFS) in all IBC and in triple-negative (TN) IBC (P < 0.035). IBC and TN IBC patients with tumors containing both CD20⁺ TILs and PD-L1⁺ TILs (CD20⁺TILs/PD-L1⁺TILs) showed longer DFS and improved BCSS (P < 0.002) than patients lacking both, or those with either CD20⁺ TILs or PD-L1⁺ TILs alone. In multivariate analyses, CD20⁺TILs/PD-L1⁺TILs status was an independent prognostic factor for DFS in IBC (hazard ratio (HR): 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.77) and TN IBC (HR: 0.39 95% CI 0.17-0.88), and for BCSS in IBC (HR: 0.60 95% CI 0.43-0.85) and TN IBC (HR: 0.38 95% CI 0.17-0.83).

CONCLUSION

CD20⁺TILs/PD-L1⁺TILs status represents an independent favorable prognostic factor in IBC and TN IBC, suggesting a critical role for B cells in antitumor immune responses. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and B cell-activating immunotherapies should be explored in these settings.