Autoimmunity: Are we asking the right question?

Immune microenvironment dynamics in breast cancer during pregnancy: impact of gestational age on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and prognosis

Background

Breast cancer during pregnancy (PrBC) is a rare condition known for its aggressive clinical behavior. The presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) has been shown to have a significant impact on the prognosis of these patients. Despite some biological characteristics of the tumor that may differ depending on the gestational age, little is known about the dynamics of the immune landscape within the tumor microenvironment (TME) in PrBC. Therefore, in this study, our objective was to gain comprehensive insights into the relationship between gestational age at breast cancer diagnosis and the composition of the TME.

Methods

n = 108 PrBC were selected from our institutional registry and categorized based on the gestational age by trimester. For all cases, TILs were profiled according to the International TILs Working Group recommendations, and subtyped by CD4, CD8, and forkhead box P3 (FOXP3) immunohistochemistry. PD-L1 was tested according to the combined positive score (CPS) using the IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay, with a cutoff value of ≥10 for positivity. The statistical approach encompassed Fisher's and Chi-squared tests, with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons, logistic regression models, and survival analyses based on the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

The proportion of patients with poorly differentiated (G3) neoplasms increased as the gestational age advanced (first trimester, n = 25, 56.8%; second trimester, n = 27, 69.2%; third trimester, n = 21, 87.5%; p = 0.03). The histologic subtypes as well as the hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status did not show significant changes across different pregnancy trimesters. In the HR+/HER2- subtype, there was a higher proportion of tumors with high/moderate TILs in the early phases of pregnancy, similar to FOXP3 expression (TILs: first trimester, n = 10, 35.7%; second trimester, n = 2, 10.5%; third trimester, n = 0; p = 0.02; FOXP3: first trimester, n = 10, 40%; second trimester, n = 3, 15.8%; third trimester, n = 0; p = 0.03). The median follow-up for our cohort was 81 months. Patients who relapsed after a breast cancer diagnosis during the first trimester were more frequently PD-L1-negative, unlike those with no disease recurrence (n = 9, 100% vs. n = 9, 56.3%; p = 0.03; hormone therapy and n = 9, 100% vs. n = 7, 53.9%; p = 0.02; chemotherapy). No statistically significant differences were seen among the three trimesters in terms of survival outcome.

Conclusion

The TME dynamics of HR+/HER2- PrBC vary based on gestational age, suggesting that immune tolerance expression during later gestational age could explain the increased aggressiveness of tumors diagnosed at that stage.

Tolerogenic dendritic cells in type 1 diabetes: no longer a concept

Tolerogenic dendritic cells (tDC) arrest the progression of autoimmune-driven dysglycemia into clinical, insulin-requiring type 1 diabetes (T1D) and preserve a critical mass of β cells able to restore some degree of normoglycemia in new-onset clinical disease. The safety of tDC, generated ex vivo from peripheral blood leukocytes, has been demonstrated in phase I clinical studies. Accumulating evidence shows that tDC act via multiple layers of immune regulation arresting the action of pancreatic β cell-targeting effector lymphocytes. tDC share a number of phenotypes and mechanisms of action, independent of the method by which they are generated ex vivo. In the context of safety, this yields confidence that the time has come to test the best characterized tDC in phase II clinical trials in T1D, especially given that tDC are already being tested for other autoimmune conditions. The time is also now to refine purity markers and to "universalize" the methods by which tDC are generated. This review summarizes the current state of tDC therapy for T1D, presents points of intersection of the mechanisms of action that the different embodiments use to induce tolerance, and offers insights into outstanding matters to address as phase II studies are imminent. Finally, we present a proposal for co-administration and serially-alternating administration of tDC and T-regulatory cells (Tregs) as a synergistic and complementary approach to prevent and treat T1D.

Myocarditis and Autoimmunity

INTRODUCTION

Autoimmune myocarditis may develop due to heterogeneous causes. Myocarditis is often caused by viral infections, but it can also be caused by systemic autoimmune diseases. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and virus vaccines induce immune activation, and they can cause the development of myocarditis, as well as several immune-related adverse events. The development of myocarditis is dependent on the genetic factors of the host, and the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) may be an important determinant of the type and severity of the disease. However, non-MHC immunoregulatory genes may also play a role in determining susceptibility.

AREA COVERED

This review summarizes the current knowledge of the etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of autoimmune myocarditis with a particular focus on viral infection and autoimmunity, and biomarkers of myocarditis.

EXPERT OPINION

An endomyocardial biopsy may not be the gold standard for the diagnosis of myocarditis. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is useful in diagnosing autoimmune myocarditis. Recently identified biomarkers of inflammation and myocyte injury are promising for the diagnosis of myocarditis when measured simultaneously. Future treatments should focus on the appropriate diagnosis of the etiologic agent, as well as on the specific stage of the evolution of immune and inflammatory processes.