Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27737921›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2017

Relevance of Tumor-Infiltrating Immune Cell Composition and Functionality for Disease Outcome in Breast Cancer.

Rico D Bense, Christos Sotiriou, Martine J Piccart-Gebhart, John B A G Haanen, Marcel A T M van Vugt, Elisabeth G E de Vries, Carolien P Schröder, Rudolf S N Fehrmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 243 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
243citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

243 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. FOXC1 Expression Predicts Capecitabine Efficacy in Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer from the GEICAM_CIBOMA Trial.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. The immunology of human breast cancer.Nature reviews. Immunology · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

183 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Rico D BenseAffiliations of authors: Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (RDB, MATMvV, EGEdV, CPS, RSNF); Department of Medical Oncology and Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium (CS, MJPG); Division of Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (JBAGH).
Christos SotiriouAffiliations of authors: Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (RDB, MATMvV, EGEdV, CPS, RSNF); Department of Medical Oncology and Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium (CS, MJPG); Division of Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (JBAGH).
Martine J Piccart-GebhartAffiliations of authors: Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (RDB, MATMvV, EGEdV, CPS, RSNF); Department of Medical Oncology and Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium (CS, MJPG); Division of Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (JBAGH).
John B A G HaanenAffiliations of authors: Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (RDB, MATMvV, EGEdV, CPS, RSNF); Department of Medical Oncology and Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium (CS, MJPG); Division of Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (JBAGH).
Marcel A T M van VugtAffiliations of authors: Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (RDB, MATMvV, EGEdV, CPS, RSNF); Department of Medical Oncology and Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium (CS, MJPG); Division of Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (JBAGH).
Elisabeth G E de VriesAffiliations of authors: Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (RDB, MATMvV, EGEdV, CPS, RSNF); Department of Medical Oncology and Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium (CS, MJPG); Division of Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (JBAGH).
Carolien P SchröderAffiliations of authors: Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (RDB, MATMvV, EGEdV, CPS, RSNF); Department of Medical Oncology and Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium (CS, MJPG); Division of Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (JBAGH).
Rudolf S N FehrmannAffiliations of authors: Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (RDB, MATMvV, EGEdV, CPS, RSNF); Department of Medical Oncology and Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium (CS, MJPG); Division of Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (JBAGH).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Not all breast cancer patients benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy, resulting in considerable undertreatment or overtreatment. New insights into the role of tumor-infiltrating immune cells suggest that their composition, as well as their functionality, might serve as a biomarker to enable optimal patient selection for current systemic therapies and upcoming treatment options such as immunotherapy. Methods: We performed several complementary unbiased in silico analyses on gene expression profiles of 7270 unrelated tumor samples of nonmetastatic breast cancer patients with known clinical follow-up. CIBERSORT was used to estimate the fraction of 22 immune cell types to study their relations with pathological complete response (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). In addition, we used four previously reported immune gene signatures and a CD8+ T-cell exhaustion signature to assess their relationships with breast cancer outcome. Multivariable binary logistic regression and multivariable Cox regression were used to assess the association of immune cell-type fractions and immune signatures with pCR and DFS/OS, respectively. Results: Increased fraction of regulatory T-cells in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumors was associated with a lower pCR rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.03 to 0.69), as well as shorter DFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.13, 95% CI = 1.23 to 7.98) and OS (HR = 7.69, 95% CI = 3.43 to 17.23). A higher fraction of M0 macrophages in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors was associated with worse DFS (HR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.33) and, in ER-positive/HER2-negative tumors, with worse OS (HR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.12 to 2.61). Increased fractions of γδ T-cells in all breast cancer patients related to a higher pCR rate (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.01 to 2.38), prolonged DFS (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.98), and, in HER2-positive tumors, with prolonged OS (HR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.73). A higher fraction of activated mast cells was associated with worse DFS (HR = 5.85, 95% CI = 2.20 to 15.54) and OS (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 2.04 to 13.91) in HER2-positive tumors. The composition of relevant immune cell types frequently differed per breast cancer subtype. Furthermore, a high CD8+ T-cell exhaustion signature score was associated with shortened DFS in patients with ER-positive tumors regardless of HER2 status (HR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.07 to 3.04). Conclusions: The main hypothesis generated in our unbiased in silico approach is that a multitude of immune cells are related to treatment response and outcome in breast cancer.

Indexed as

Lymphocytes, Tumor-InfiltratingBreast NeoplasmsCD8-Positive T-LymphocytesComputer SimulationDisease-Free SurvivalErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansLeukocytes, MononuclearMacrophagesMast CellsMiddle AgedReceptors, Antigen, T-Cell, gamma-deltaReceptors, EstrogenSurvival RateT-Lymphocytes, RegulatoryERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, Antigen, T-Cell, gamma-deltaReceptors, Estrogen

Identifiers

PMID27737921
PMCPMC6284248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.