Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32203210›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2020

The prognostic significance of immune microenvironment in breast ductal carcinoma in situ.

Michael S Toss, Asima Abidi, Dorothea Lesche, Chitra Joseph, Sakshi Mahale, Hugo Saunders, Tanjina Kader, Islam M Miligy, Andrew R Green, Kylie L Gorringe and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. The Microenvironment in DCIS and Its Role in Disease Progression.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Multi-omics portrait of ductal carcinoma in situ in young women.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Michael S TossNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK. msxms8@nottingham.ac.uk.
Asima AbidiNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
Dorothea LescheCancer Genomics Program, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Chitra JosephNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
Sakshi MahaleCancer Genomics Program, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Hugo SaundersCancer Genomics Program, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Tanjina KaderCancer Genomics Program, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Islam M MiligyNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
Andrew R GreenNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0488-5913
Kylie L GorringeCancer Genomics Program, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Emad A RakhaNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
University of Nottingham · GBThe University of Melbourne · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of different subtypes of tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is still poorly defined. This study aimed to assess the prognostic significance of B and T lymphocytes and immune checkpoint proteins expression in DCIS.

methodsA well characterised DCIS cohort (n = 700) with long-term follow-up comprising pure DCIS (n = 508) and DCIS mixed with invasive carcinoma (IBC; n = 192) were stained immunohistochemically for CD20, CD3, CD4, CD8, FOXP3, PD1 and PDL1. Copy number variation and TP53 mutation status were assessed in a subset of cases (n = 58).

resultsCD3+ lymphocytes were the predominant cell subtype in the pure DCIS cohort, while FOXP3 showed the lowest levels. PDL1 expression was mainly seen in the stromal TILs. Higher abundance of TILs subtypes was associated with higher tumour grade, hormone receptor negativity and HER2 positivity. Mutant TP53 variants were associated with higher levels of stromal CD3+, CD4+ and FOXP3+ cells. DCIS coexisting with invasive carcinoma harboured denser stromal infiltrates of all immune cells and checkpoint proteins apart from CD4+ cells. Stromal PD1 was the most differentially expressed protein between DCIS and invasive carcinoma (Z = 5.8, p < 0.0001). Dense TILs, stromal FOXP3 and PDL1 were poor prognostic factors for DCIS recurrence, while dense TILs were independently associated with poor outcome for all recurrences (HR = 7.0; p = 0.024), and invasive recurrence (HR = 2.1; p = 0.029).

conclusionsImmunosuppressive proteins are potential markers for high risk DCIS and disease progression. Different stromal and intratumoural lymphocyte composition between pure DCIS, DCIS associated with IBC and invasive carcinoma play a potential role in their prognostic significance and related to the underlying genomic instability. Assessment of overall TILs provides a promising tool for evaluation of the DCIS immune microenvironment.

Indexed as

B7-H1 AntigenBiomarkers, TumorB-LymphocytesBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCD4-Positive T-LymphocytesCell LineageDNA Copy Number VariationsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleForkhead Transcription FactorsHumansLymphocytes, Tumor-InfiltratingPrognosisT-LymphocytesTumor MicroenvironmentB7-H1 AntigenBiomarkers, TumorCD274 protein, humanERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesForkhead Transcription FactorsFOXP3 protein, humanTP53 protein, humanTumor Suppressor Protein p53

Identifiers

PMID32203210
PMCPMC7217899
OpenAlexW3011054295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.