Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

TP53 Signature Score Predicts Prognosis and Immune Response in Triple-negative Breast Cancer

MAI ONISHI, SHIGEO YAMAGUCHI, XUAN WEN, MIN HAN, HIDENORI KIDO, TOMOYUKI ARUGA, SHIN-ICHIRO HORIGUCHI and SHUNSUKE KATO
Anticancer Research April 2023, 43 (4) 1731-1739; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.16326
MAI ONISHI
1Department of Clinical Oncology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan;
2Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SHIGEO YAMAGUCHI
1Department of Clinical Oncology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: s-yamaguchi{at}cbioinformatics.com
XUAN WEN
1Department of Clinical Oncology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MIN HAN
1Department of Clinical Oncology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIDENORI KIDO
1Department of Clinical Oncology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TOMOYUKI ARUGA
2Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SHIN-ICHIRO HORIGUCHI
3Department of Pathology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SHUNSUKE KATO
1Department of Clinical Oncology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is considered a heterogeneous disease and achieving a pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is considered a surrogate biomarker of a favorable prognosis. Previously, the TP53 signature (TP53sig)-score, the expression profile of 33 genes, has been reported to predict the prognosis of all types of early-stage breast cancer. Herein, we analyzed whether the TP53sig-score can be used to subclassify a TNBC cohort and investigated the molecular biological characteristics of the higher TP53sig-score. Patients and Methods: Publicly available data from TCGA (RNA-sequence) and METABRIC (microarray) and expression data from real clinical specimens (NanoString Technologies) were used to explore the prognosis and molecular features of TNBC. Results: The high TP53sig-score group in the present study and the cohort in METABRIC tended to have a worse prognosis than the low TP53sig-score group (p=0.583 and 0.196, respectively). In both the pCR and non-pCR groups, the high TP53sig-score patients tended to have a poor prognosis (p=0.0739). Moreover, when the NAC response and TP53sig-score were combined, the five-year breast cancer-free rate among the four groups differed significantly (p=0.043). In addition, high TP53sig-score was related to gene ontology terms, such as “cell differentiation” and “innate immune response”. Notably, this group had the potential to respond favorably to immunotherapy according to the tumor immune dysfunction and exclusion model. Conclusion: The combination of the response to NAC and the TP53sig-score in TNBC was able to predict an unfavorable prognosis. Furthermore, patients with a high TP53sig-score showed a favorable response to immunotherapy.

Key Words:
  • Triple-negative breast cancer
  • gene signature
  • tumor immunity

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), characterized by estrogen receptor (ER)-negativity, progesterone receptor (PgR)-negativity, and human epidermal growth factor receptor-related 2 (HER2)-negativity, is known to have the worst prognosis among the breast cancer subtypes (1, 2). A pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) using cytotoxic drugs, such as anthracyclines and taxane, is considered a surrogate biomarker of a favorable prognosis, and additional treatment after both NAC and surgery reportedly improves the prognosis of non-pCR patients (3, 4). Recently, pembrolizumab showed an improvement in the pCR rate for high-risk early TNBC in combination with chemotherapy (5). However, recurrences have been reported in patients who have achieved pCR, indicating the need for more accurate predictive and prognostic biomarkers (6, 7).

Originally, the TP53 signature (TP53sig) was developed on the basis of various genes expressed in TP53 structural mutant-type (MT) and wild-type (WT) breast cancers (8). The TP53sig is a continuous, non-parametric value that can be used as a risk score. Previously, we reported that the overall prognosis of all subtypes of breast cancer could be predicted by setting a risk score cut-off for all subtypes and classifying each under the TP53sig MT or WT types. When theTP53sig of all the subtypes was classified using the cut-off value used in previous reports, most cases of TNBC were of the TP53sig MT type, although TP53sig MT type did not fully match TP53 somatic mutations (9). Furthermore, the molecular biology of the TP53sig was characterized by increased genome instability and promotion of cell cycle progression (9). Although each cancer subtype has already been examined in previous studies, TNBC has tumor heterogeneity, and its response to NAC and prognosis vary widely, as described above. Accordingly, TNBC was classified by the TP53sig, then predictive value of the TP53sig-score was assessed, and the NAC response and prognosis were analyzed according to the hypothesis that the TP53sig can be subclassified in detail even in a TNBC cohort. The present study also examined the molecular biological characteristics of patients with TNBC with a high TP53sig-score to consider new strategies of treatment.

Patients and Methods

Patient data from public databases. The cancer genome atlas program (TCGA) dataset was downloaded via cBioportal and UCSC Xena (10-12). The Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) dataset was obtained from cBioportal.

Our own data. The medical records of 71 patients with TNBC who received NAC between January 2006 and December 2014 at Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center at Komagome Hospital in Japan were retrospectively reviewed. We defined TNBC as ER <1%, PgR <1%, and HER2-negative status. HER-2 negative means a score of 0 or 1 by immunohistochemical analysis or the absence of HER2-amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization with an immunohistochemistry score of 2. Samples from 60 patients were analyzed for gene expression and clinicopathological data. pCR is defined as no invasive residual tumor in breast and lymph nodes after NAC.

The patient data were collected in accordance with the ethical guidelines for medical and health research involving human subjects. Our protocol was approved by the institutional ethical committee (November 10th, 2018/No. 2182) and conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All the patients provided informed consent in the form of opt-out.

RNA extraction. Glass slide specimens with 10-μm thick sections of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue block that were collected by core-needle biopsy or vacuum-assisted biopsy at the diagnosis were prepared. Total RNA was extracted from the samples using RNeasy mini kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany).

Gene expression analysis via nCounter. RNA quality was monitored using NanoDrop 2000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Except samples of low yields of RNA extraction, we analyzed 60 FFPE specimens using digital quantification via the nCounter (NanoStrings Technologies, Seattle, WA, USA). A set of sixty genes including five internal control genes was used as the TP53 signature gene set for nCounter. Following the manufacturer’s instructions, we measured the expression values of the 33 genes using nCounter with 200 ng of total RNA extracted from the FFPE samples.

TP53sig-score. The TP53sig-score was calculated using microarray expression data or nCounter according to the following formula. TP53sig-score=(sum of the count of 24 genes up-regulated in tumors with a TP53 mutation)/(sum of the count of nine genes down-regulated in tumors with a TP53 mutation).

Statistical analysis using clinical information. The association between various clinicopathological parameters and the TP53sig-score as determined using nCounter or microarray expression data was evaluated using the chi-square test or one-way analysis of variance test. The t-test was used to analyze the expression data and the status of the TP53sig-score. The relapse-free survival (RFS) and breast cancer-free survival (BCFS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and evaluated using the log-rank test. RFS was defined as the period from the date of operation to the date of recurrence, and BCFS was defined as the period from the date of operation to the date of invasive breast cancer recurrence. For all statistical analyses, p<0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. All statical analyses were conducted using R ver3.32 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and EZR ver1.54 (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), a graphical user interface for R (13).

Gene ontology enrichment analysis. Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis was performed using David ver6.8 (14, 15). In the function annotation chart obtained from DAVID, GO terms with p<0.1 were considered to indicate statistical significance.

TIDE evaluation. Tumor Immune Dysfunction and Exclusion (TIDE) evaluation was performed via the website platform (16, 17). The TIDE score computed for each tumor sample can serve as a surrogate biomarker to predict the response to immune checkpoint blockade, including anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4, for melanoma and NSCLC (16, 17).

Data availability. The data that support the findings of the present study are openly available in Gene Expression Omnibus at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE190275, reference number GSE190275.

Results

TP53sig-score for all breast cancer subtypes. We extracted 1,904 stage I-III breast cancers from METABRIC and classified ER+ or PgR+ and HER2− as the luminal-type, ER+ or PgR+ and HER2+ as the luminal-HER2 type, ER−, PgR−, and HER2+ as the HER2-enriched type, and ER−, PgR−, and HER2− as the TNBC type according to the results of ER/PgR/HER2 based on immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis of the four groups. When the TP53sig was compared in the last group, TNBC was found to have the highest score (Figure 1; p<0.001).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

The TP53 signature (TP53sig) score per breast cancer subtype from METABRIC. The triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) cohort had a higher TP53sig score than the other subtypes (p<0.001).

Patient characteristics and survival analysis in TNBC (METABRIC and our data). In the present study, we analyzed our own data that is the TNBC cohort previously treated with chemotherapy and obtained TNBC cohorts from TCGA and METABRIC. we analyzed our own data, including the TNBC-with-NAC and TNBC cohorts obtained from TCGA and METABRIC. As Table I shows, the TP53sig was calculated on the basis of expression data or microarray data, and the median of the TP53sig-score in each cohort was used to divide into the high and low TP53sig groups. Clinicopathological patient characteristics of these two groups did not differ significantly in either dataset. Both our own cohort and the METABRIC cohort tended to have a worse prognosis in the low TP53sig-score than in the high TP53sig-score population, although the difference was not significant (Figure 2; p=0.583 and p=0.196, respectively).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Clinicopathological patient characteristics per group.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Relapse-free survival analysis of the high and low TP53 signature (TP53sig) score groups in METABRIC (A) and our own data (B). Both cohorts tended to have a worse prognosis in the high TP53sig score population than in a low TP53sig score population, but the difference was not significant [p=0.583 (A) and p=0.196 (B)].

Survival analysis when combining the TP53sig-score and NAC response. We analyzed the relationship between the TP53sig-score and NAC response in patients with TNBC. In terms of predicting the NAC response, MKI-67 levels were higher in pCR patients (Figure 3A; p=0.0453) whereas the TP53sig-score tended to be only slightly higher in the pCR patients although the difference was not statistically significant (Figure 3B; p=0.153). In both the pCR and non-pCR patients, patients with a high TP53sig-score group tended to have a poor prognosis (Figure 4A; p=0.0739). In contrast, MKI-67 scores showed no such tendency (Figure 4B; p=0.734). In addition, when the TP53sig-score was combined with the NAC response, the five-year breast cancer-free rate was found to be significantly different among the four groups (Table II and Table III; p=0.043).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Association of neoadjuvant chemotherapy effect with MKI-67 status (A) and TP53 signature (TP53sig) score (B). MKI-67 level was higher in pathological complete response [pCR patients (p=0.0453)], whereas the TP53sig score tended to be slightly higher in pCR patients (p=0.153).

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Relapse-free survival (RFS) analysis for each group according to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) response and MKI-67 status (A). RFS analysis according to NAC response and TP53 signature (TP53sig) score (B). In both pathological complete response (pCR) and non-pCR patients, patients in the high TP53sig score group tended to have a poor prognosis (Figure 4A; p=0.0739).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Number of 5-year breast cancer events among each group with MKI-67.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Number of 5-year breast cancer events among each group with TP53sig. The five-year breast cancer-free rates in the four groups were found to be significantly different (p=0.043).

Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in the low and high TP53sig-score groups. DEGs in the high and low TP53sig-score groups in the TCGA were identified, and 498 DEGs with p<0.1 and less than two-fold change were detected. Many of these genes were related to GO terms, such as “cell differentiation” (e.g., DAPL1, USH1C, TEX15, DLK1, EDAR, SLC22A16, ZIC2, NHLH1, ELF5, SFRP5, SMOC1, PRAME, NKX2-5, KRT6A) and “innate immune response” (e.g., DEFB1, IL27, MARCO, CLEC4C, SLPI, CLEC6A, NLRP2, LCN2, CD300E, IL36RN, S100A9, S100A8, S100A7, IGHV1OR21-1) in the high TP53sig-score group.

Evaluating tumor immunity environment using TIDE. Tumor immunity was assessed using TIDE, a tool for predicting the effects of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and was compared between the high and low TP53sig-score groups. In the METABRIC cohort (Figure 5A-F), high TP53sig-score group was associated with a higher proportion of responders (p=0.00253), high CD 274 related to PD-L1 expression (p<0.0454), low T cell exhaustion (p<0.001), low expression profiles of cancer-associated fibrosis (CAF), and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) (p<0.001 and p=0.0124, respectively). On the other hand, in high TP53sig-score group, an expression profile of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) was significantly high (p<0.001). The TCGA cohort (Figure 5G-L) showed a similar trend to that of the METABRIC cohort, but except for CAF, the difference was not statistically significant.

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Tumor immunity evaluation in high and low TP53 signature (TP53sig) groups based on data from METABRIC (A-F) and TCGA (G-L) compared with tumor immune dysfunction and exclusion (TIDE) (A, G), interferon-gamma (B, H), CD274 (C, I), CAF (D, J), TAM (E, H), and MDSC (F, L). In the METABRIC cohort, in the high TP53sig group, the TIDE score predictive of T cell exhaustion was significantly low (p<0.001), the CD274 scores related to PD-L1 expression were high (p<0.0454), and cancer-associated fibrosis (CAF) and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) were also significantly low (p<0.001 and p=0.0124). On the other hand, myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) were significantly high (p<0.001). The TCGA cohort (G-L) showed a similar trend to that of the METABRIC cohort, but except for CAF, the difference was not statistically significant.

Discussion

In the present study, TNBC was associated with a high TP53sig-score and the high TP53sig-score group was in turn associated with a poorer prognosis compared to the low TP53sig-score groups. Regardless of the NAC response, the highTP53sig-score group had a poor prognosis. The TP53sig was developed as a gene signature to predict structural mutations in TP53, but it was also found to reflect aspects of the tumor immune environment, such as TIDE, PD-L1, CAF, TAMs, and MDSCs.

Previous studies reported that TP53sig-MT was associated with the promotion of cell cycle progression, and that the expression signature, rather than the structural mutation of TP53, was useful in predicting the effect of fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC) followed by paclitaxel in all breast cancer subtypes (9, 18). In addition, the TP53 MT type population reportedly has a high degree of nuclear atypia and MKI-67. In the present study, most of the TNBC TP53 structural mutations and studies of the usual TP53 MT type population showed that the TP53sig-score was inferior to MKI-67, which better reflects the cell cycle, but that a combination of the NAC response and TP53sig was better able to predict the prognosis.

The present study found that there was a high proportion of MDSCs in the high TP53sig-score group. MDSCs increase in cancer, inflammation, and infections. Furthermore, they inhibit the T-cell response and has been identified as a predictor of resistance to anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein (CTLA4) antibodies in melanoma (19, 20). MDSCs are also reportedly a poor prognostic marker of breast cancer, suggesting that it may be one of the causes of the poor prognosis of the high TP53sig-score population (21). In vivo studies of breast cancer have reported that doxorubicin induced a reduction in MDSCs and that in other cancer species, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) administration induced a decrease in MDSCs (22, 23). Based on these results, the 5-FU and doxorubicin regimens may be a practical therapeutic option for the high-MDSC population, and of the 5-FU regimens, capecitabine may have the potential to be an effective treatment for high-risk TNBC, including cases with non-pCR (3).

The MT-type TP53 signature is reportedly associated with a high PD-L1 level (9). In addition, the structural mutation of TP53 itself is also associated with PD-L1 expression, and genomic instability is a predictor of ICI efficacy (24-27). ICIs are also thought to be effective against TNBC, especially in cases with a high TP53sig-score.

The anti-PD-L1 and anti-PD-1 antibodies are reportedly useful not only against TNBC metastases but also in the perioperative period (5, 28-30). PD-L1 expression in IHC assays and microsatellite instability is the only predictive biomarker of efficacy, and thus more detailed biomarkers are needed (29). TIDE was developed as a tool to calculate T cell exhaustion as well as PD-L1 expression and predict the effect of ICIs and expression profiles of CAFs, TAMs, and MDSCs. CAFs and TAMs have immunosuppressive roles as they reduce T cell responses and regulate the killing effect of T cells and natural killer cells (31-33). The present study suggested that the high TP53sig-score and usual non-pCR population in TNBC had a poor prognosis whereas the high TP53sig-score population had a low TIDE score and T-cell function. High PD-L1 expression also predicted a favorable response to ICIs, and patients with this feature are considered good candidates for ICI therapy.

In the present study, ICI efficacy was not directly investigated, nor was the tumor immune environment evaluated owing to the limited data available from nCounter for patients receiving NAC. However, two, large, public databases, TCGA and METABRIC, found comparable results for the tumor immune environment, suggesting that the high TP53sig-score group among patients with TNBC may be good candidates for ICI therapy.

In conclusion, combining the NAC response with the TP53sig-score was able to predict a poor prognosis in patients with TNBC, and the high TP53sig-score population was found to have a favorable immunotherapy response.

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted in part at the Intractable Disease Research Center, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan. The Authors thank the Department of Pathology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, and Yukiko Banzai for their technical assistance.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    M.O, S.Y. designed the study. M.O., T.A. and SI.H. reviewed clinical and pathological information. M.H. and S.Y. advised on the RNA extraction protocol and how to use the nCounter. M.O. and S.Y. performed the statistical analyses. M.O. wrote the manuscript. S.Y. and S.K. critically revised the manuscript. All Authors read and approved the manuscript.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this article.

  • Received January 21, 2023.
  • Revision received February 6, 2023.
  • Accepted February 8, 2023.
  • Copyright © 2023 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Foulkes WD,
    2. Smith IE and
    3. Reis-Filho JS
    : Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 363(20): 1938-1948, 2010. PMID: 21067385. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1001389
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Perou CM,
    2. Sørlie T,
    3. Eisen MB,
    4. van de Rijn M,
    5. Jeffrey SS,
    6. Rees CA,
    7. Pollack JR,
    8. Ross DT,
    9. Johnsen H,
    10. Akslen LA,
    11. Fluge O,
    12. Pergamenschikov A,
    13. Williams C,
    14. Zhu SX,
    15. Lønning PE,
    16. Børresen-Dale AL,
    17. Brown PO and
    18. Botstein D
    : Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797): 747-752, 2000. PMID: 10963602. DOI: 10.1038/35021093
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Masuda N,
    2. Lee SJ,
    3. Ohtani S,
    4. Im YH,
    5. Lee ES,
    6. Yokota I,
    7. Kuroi K,
    8. Im SA,
    9. Park BW,
    10. Kim SB,
    11. Yanagita Y,
    12. Ohno S,
    13. Takao S,
    14. Aogi K,
    15. Iwata H,
    16. Jeong J,
    17. Kim A,
    18. Park KH,
    19. Sasano H,
    20. Ohashi Y and
    21. Toi M
    : Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 376(22): 2147-2159, 2017. PMID: 28564564. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. von Minckwitz G,
    2. Untch M,
    3. Blohmer JU,
    4. Costa SD,
    5. Eidtmann H,
    6. Fasching PA,
    7. Gerber B,
    8. Eiermann W,
    9. Hilfrich J,
    10. Huober J,
    11. Jackisch C,
    12. Kaufmann M,
    13. Konecny GE,
    14. Denkert C,
    15. Nekljudova V,
    16. Mehta K and
    17. Loibl S
    : Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 30(15): 1796-1804, 2012. PMID: 22508812. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8595
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Schmid P,
    2. Cortes J,
    3. Pusztai L,
    4. McArthur H,
    5. Kümmel S,
    6. Bergh J,
    7. Denkert C,
    8. Park YH,
    9. Hui R,
    10. Harbeck N,
    11. Takahashi M,
    12. Foukakis T,
    13. Fasching PA,
    14. Cardoso F,
    15. Untch M,
    16. Jia L,
    17. Karantza V,
    18. Zhao J,
    19. Aktan G,
    20. Dent R,
    21. O’Shaughnessy J and KEYNOTE-522 Investigators
    : Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 382(9): 810-821, 2020. PMID: 32101663. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Fornier M and
    2. Fumoleau P
    : The paradox of triple negative breast cancer: novel approaches to treatment. Breast J 18(1): 41-51, 2012. PMID: 22098334. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01175.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Conforti F,
    2. Pala L,
    3. Bagnardi V,
    4. De Pas T,
    5. Colleoni M,
    6. Buyse M,
    7. Hortobagyi G,
    8. Gianni L,
    9. Winer E,
    10. Loibl S,
    11. Cortes J,
    12. Piccart M,
    13. Wolff AC,
    14. Viale G and
    15. Gelber RD
    : Surrogacy of pathologic complete response in trials of neoadjuvant therapy for early breast cancer: critical analysis of strengths, weaknesses, and misinterpretations. JAMA Oncol 8(11): 1668-1675, 2022. PMID: 36201176. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.3755
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Takahashi S,
    2. Moriya T,
    3. Ishida T,
    4. Shibata H,
    5. Sasano H,
    6. Ohuchi N and
    7. Ishioka C
    : Prediction of breast cancer prognosis by gene expression profile of TP53 status. Cancer Sci 99(2): 324-332, 2008. PMID: 18271932. DOI: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2007.00691.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Yamaguchi S,
    2. Takahashi S,
    3. Mogushi K,
    4. Izumi Y,
    5. Nozaki Y,
    6. Nomizu T,
    7. Kakugawa Y,
    8. Ishida T,
    9. Ohuchi N,
    10. Ishioka C and
    11. Kato S
    : Molecular and clinical features of the TP53 signature gene expression profile in early-stage breast cancer. Oncotarget 9(18): 14193-14206, 2018. PMID: 29581837. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.24447
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Cerami E,
    2. Gao J,
    3. Dogrusoz U,
    4. Gross BE,
    5. Sumer SO,
    6. Aksoy BA,
    7. Jacobsen A,
    8. Byrne CJ,
    9. Heuer ML,
    10. Larsson E,
    11. Antipin Y,
    12. Reva B,
    13. Goldberg AP,
    14. Sander C and
    15. Schultz N
    : The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov 2(5): 401-404, 2012. PMID: 22588877. DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0095
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Gao J,
    2. Aksoy BA,
    3. Dogrusoz U,
    4. Dresdner G,
    5. Gross B,
    6. Sumer SO,
    7. Sun Y,
    8. Jacobsen A,
    9. Sinha R,
    10. Larsson E,
    11. Cerami E,
    12. Sander C and
    13. Schultz N
    : Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal 6(269): pl1, 2013. PMID: 23550210. DOI: 10.1126/scisignal.2004088
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Goldman MJ,
    2. Craft B,
    3. Hastie M,
    4. Repečka K,
    5. McDade F,
    6. Kamath A,
    7. Banerjee A,
    8. Luo Y,
    9. Rogers D,
    10. Brooks AN,
    11. Zhu J and
    12. Haussler D
    : Visualizing and interpreting cancer genomics data via the Xena platform. Nat Biotechnol 38(6): 675-678, 2020. PMID: 32444850. DOI: 10.1038/s41587-020-0546-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Kanda Y
    : Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 48(3): 452-458, 2013. PMID: 23208313. DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2012.244
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Huang da W,
    2. Sherman BT and
    3. Lempicki RA
    : Bioinformatics enrichment tools: paths toward the comprehensive functional analysis of large gene lists. Nucleic Acids Res 37(1): 1-13, 2009. PMID: 19033363. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkn923
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Huang da W,
    2. Sherman BT and
    3. Lempicki RA
    : Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources. Nat Protoc 4(1): 44-57, 2009. PMID: 19131956. DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2008.211
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Fu J,
    2. Li K,
    3. Zhang W,
    4. Wan C,
    5. Zhang J,
    6. Jiang P and
    7. Liu XS
    : Large-scale public data reuse to model immunotherapy response and resistance. Genome Med 12(1): 21, 2020. PMID: 32102694. DOI: 10.1186/s13073-020-0721-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Jiang P,
    2. Gu S,
    3. Pan D,
    4. Fu J,
    5. Sahu A,
    6. Hu X,
    7. Li Z,
    8. Traugh N,
    9. Bu X,
    10. Li B,
    11. Liu J,
    12. Freeman GJ,
    13. Brown MA,
    14. Wucherpfennig KW and
    15. Liu XS
    : Signatures of T cell dysfunction and exclusion predict cancer immunotherapy response. Nat Med 24(10): 1550-1558, 2018. PMID: 30127393. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-018-0136-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Oshima K,
    2. Naoi Y,
    3. Kishi K,
    4. Nakamura Y,
    5. Iwamoto T,
    6. Shimazu K,
    7. Nakayama T,
    8. Kim SJ,
    9. Baba Y,
    10. Tamaki Y and
    11. Noguchi S
    : Gene expression signature of TP53 but not its mutation status predicts response to sequential paclitaxel and 5-FU/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide in human breast cancer. Cancer Lett 307(2): 149-157, 2011. PMID: 21514041. DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2011.03.027
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Gabrilovich DI and
    2. Nagaraj S
    : Myeloid-derived suppressor cells as regulators of the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol 9(3): 162-174, 2009. PMID: 19197294. DOI: 10.1038/nri2506
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Retseck J,
    2. Nasr A,
    3. Lin Y,
    4. Lin H,
    5. Mendiratta P,
    6. Butterfield LH and
    7. Tarhini AA
    : Long term impact of CTLA4 blockade immunotherapy on regulatory and effector immune responses in patients with melanoma. J Transl Med 16(1): 184, 2018. PMID: 29973204. DOI: 10.1186/s12967-018-1563-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Gonda K,
    2. Shibata M,
    3. Ohtake T,
    4. Matsumoto Y,
    5. Tachibana K,
    6. Abe N,
    7. Ohto H,
    8. Sakurai K and
    9. Takenoshita S
    : Myeloid-derived suppressor cells are increased and correlated with type 2 immune responses, malnutrition, inflammation, and poor prognosis in patients with breast cancer. Oncol Lett 14(2): 1766-1774, 2017. PMID: 28789407. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2017.6305
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Alizadeh D,
    2. Trad M,
    3. Hanke NT,
    4. Larmonier CB,
    5. Janikashvili N,
    6. Bonnotte B,
    7. Katsanis E and
    8. Larmonier N
    : Doxorubicin eliminates myeloid-derived suppressor cells and enhances the efficacy of adoptive T-cell transfer in breast cancer. Cancer Res 74(1): 104-118, 2014. PMID: 24197130. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-1545
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Wang Z,
    2. Till B and
    3. Gao Q
    : Chemotherapeutic agent-mediated elimination of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Oncoimmunology 6(7): e1331807, 2017. PMID: 28811975. DOI: 10.1080/2162402X.2017.1331807
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Aguadé-Gorgorió G and
    2. Solé R
    : Genetic instability as a driver for immune surveillance. J Immunother Cancer 7(1): 345, 2019. PMID: 31829285. DOI: 10.1186/s40425-019-0795-6
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Li L,
    2. Li M and
    3. Wang X
    : Cancer type-dependent correlations between TP53 mutations and antitumor immunity. DNA Repair (Amst) 88: 102785, 2020. PMID: 32007736. DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2020.102785
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Liu Z,
    2. Jiang Z,
    3. Gao Y,
    4. Wang L,
    5. Chen C and
    6. Wang X
    : TP53 mutations promote immunogenic activity in breast cancer. J Oncol 2019: 5952836, 2019. PMID: 31275382. DOI: 10.1155/2019/5952836
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Zeng Y,
    2. Wang CL,
    3. Xian J,
    4. Ye Q,
    5. Qin X,
    6. Tan YW and
    7. Cao YD
    : Positive correlation between programmed death ligand-1 and p53 in triple-negative breast cancer. Onco Targets Ther 12: 7193-7201, 2019. PMID: 31564903. DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S209484
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Cortes J,
    2. Cescon DW,
    3. Rugo HS,
    4. Nowecki Z,
    5. Im SA,
    6. Yusof MM,
    7. Gallardo C,
    8. Lipatov O,
    9. Barrios CH,
    10. Holgado E,
    11. Iwata H,
    12. Masuda N,
    13. Otero MT,
    14. Gokmen E,
    15. Loi S,
    16. Guo Z,
    17. Zhao J,
    18. Aktan G,
    19. Karantza V,
    20. Schmid P and KEYNOTE-355 Investigators
    : Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-355): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet 396(10265): 1817-1828, 2020. PMID: 33278935. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32531-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Kossai M,
    2. Radosevic-Robin N and
    3. Penault-Llorca F
    : Refining patient selection for breast cancer immunotherapy: beyond PD-L1. ESMO Open 6(5): 100257, 2021. PMID: 34487970. DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100257
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Schmid P,
    2. Adams S,
    3. Rugo HS,
    4. Schneeweiss A,
    5. Barrios CH,
    6. Iwata H,
    7. Diéras V,
    8. Hegg R,
    9. Im SA,
    10. Shaw Wright G,
    11. Henschel V,
    12. Molinero L,
    13. Chui SY,
    14. Funke R,
    15. Husain A,
    16. Winer EP,
    17. Loi S,
    18. Emens LA and IMpassion130 Trial Investigators
    : Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 379(22): 2108-2121, 2018. PMID: 30345906. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809615
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Fearon DT
    : The carcinoma-associated fibroblast expressing fibroblast activation protein and escape from immune surveillance. Cancer Immunol Res 2(3): 187-193, 2014. PMID: 24778314. DOI: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Pan Y,
    2. Yu Y,
    3. Wang X and
    4. Zhang T
    : Tumor-associated macrophages in tumor immunity. Front Immunol 11: 583084, 2020. PMID: 33365025. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.583084
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Sahai E,
    2. Astsaturov I,
    3. Cukierman E,
    4. DeNardo DG,
    5. Egeblad M,
    6. Evans RM,
    7. Fearon D,
    8. Greten FR,
    9. Hingorani SR,
    10. Hunter T,
    11. Hynes RO,
    12. Jain RK,
    13. Janowitz T,
    14. Jorgensen C,
    15. Kimmelman AC,
    16. Kolonin MG,
    17. Maki RG,
    18. Powers RS,
    19. Puré E,
    20. Ramirez DC,
    21. Scherz-Shouval R,
    22. Sherman MH,
    23. Stewart S,
    24. Tlsty TD,
    25. Tuveson DA,
    26. Watt FM,
    27. Weaver V,
    28. Weeraratna AT and
    29. Werb Z
    : A framework for advancing our understanding of cancer-associated fibroblasts. Nat Rev Cancer 20(3): 174-186, 2020. PMID: 31980749. DOI: 10.1038/s41568-019-0238-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Prado-Vázquez G,
    2. Gámez-Pozo A,
    3. Trilla-Fuertes L,
    4. Arevalillo JM,
    5. Zapater-Moros A,
    6. Ferrer-Gómez M,
    7. Díaz-Almirón M,
    8. López-Vacas R,
    9. Navarro H,
    10. Maín P,
    11. Feliú J,
    12. Zamora P,
    13. Espinosa E and
    14. Fresno Vara JÁ
    : A novel approach to triple-negative breast cancer molecular classification reveals a luminal immune-positive subgroup with good prognoses. Sci Rep 9(1): 1538, 2019. PMID: 30733547. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-38364-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 43 (4)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 43, Issue 4
April 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
TP53 Signature Score Predicts Prognosis and Immune Response in Triple-negative Breast Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
TP53 Signature Score Predicts Prognosis and Immune Response in Triple-negative Breast Cancer
MAI ONISHI, SHIGEO YAMAGUCHI, XUAN WEN, MIN HAN, HIDENORI KIDO, TOMOYUKI ARUGA, SHIN-ICHIRO HORIGUCHI, SHUNSUKE KATO
Anticancer Research Apr 2023, 43 (4) 1731-1739; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16326

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
TP53 Signature Score Predicts Prognosis and Immune Response in Triple-negative Breast Cancer
MAI ONISHI, SHIGEO YAMAGUCHI, XUAN WEN, MIN HAN, HIDENORI KIDO, TOMOYUKI ARUGA, SHIN-ICHIRO HORIGUCHI, SHUNSUKE KATO
Anticancer Research Apr 2023, 43 (4) 1731-1739; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16326
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • Inactivation of the Tumor Suppressor CYLD Sensitizes Mice to Breast Cancer Development
  • Target-Oriented Classification of Triple-negative Breast Cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Awareness, Utilization, and Barriers to Fluorescence Ureteral Navigation in Japan: A Nationwide Survey Study
  • Clinical Parameters and Radiomics of Vestibular Schwannomas in NF2-related Schwannomatosis
  • Prognostic Impact of Claudin18.2 and TROP2 Expression in Advanced Gastric Cancer Treated With Nivolumab
Show more Clinical Studies

Keywords

  • Triple-negative breast cancer
  • gene signature
  • tumor immunity
Anticancer Research

© 2026 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire