Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Stromal Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes (sTILs) as a putative prognostic marker to identify a responsive subset of TNBC in an Indian Breast Cancer Cohort.

Stromal Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes (sTILs) as a putative prognostic marker to identify a... 43 Objectives 44 Prognostic significance of stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) is evaluated to 45 identify a responsive subset of TNBC in an Indian cohort of breast cancer patients. 46 Methods 47 A retrospective cohort of breast cancer patients from a single onco-surgeon breast cancer 48 clinic treated with uniform treatment strategy across is evaluated for sTILs. FFPE tissue 49 of primary tumor of invasive breast carcinoma are collected with ethical approvals. Tumor 50 sections blinded for subtypes are stained with H&E and scored for sTILs by a pathologist 51 following Immuno-Oncology TILs working group’s scoring guidelines. 52 Results 53 Analysis of 144 primary breast tumors for sTILs scores re-enforces significantly higher 54 infiltration in TNBC tumors than HER2+ and ER+ tumors. Higher sTILs scores co-relate 55 with gradually incremental pathological response to therapy specifically in TNBC subset 56 and with better disease-free survival outcomes. Within TNBC, older and post-menopausal 57 patients harbor higher scores of sTILs. 58 Conclusion 59 Despite a small cohort of breast cancer patients, TNBC subtype reflected significantly 60 higher scores of sTILs with better response to therapy and disease-free outcomes as 61 compared to other breast cancer subtypes. A larger number of breast cancer patients 62 from an Indian cohort will strengthen the findings to establish sTILs as a marker to identify 63 a responsive subset of TNBC. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 64 Key points: 65 Key point 1: 66 This is a first attempt to understand the significance of stromal tumor-infiltrating 67 lymphocytes in a breast cancer cohort from India, where higher recurrence and mortality 68 rates are observed. 69 Key point 2: 70 TNBC tumors show higher sTILs infiltration compared to non-TNBC patients. Higher 71 sTILs scores within TNBC co-relates with better therapy response disease-free survival. 72 Key point 3: 73 Higher sTILs scores in TNBC tumors in an Indian cohort showed a novel and unique 74 association with old age and post-menopausal patients. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 75 INTRODUCTION 76 Breast Cancer is the leading cause for cancer related deaths in India, with close to 50% 77 mortality rate . Though there are effective treatments available for Breast Cancer, most 78 targeted therapies are available for subtypes that express the molecular receptors ER, 79 PR and/or HER2. A subtype that lacks expression of these receptors; triple negative 80 breast cancer (TNBC) cannot avail targeted therapy . With lack of targeted treatment, 81 TNBC is an aggressive subset of breast cancer with higher rates of recurrence and lower 3,4 82 overall survival . 5,6 83 Worldwide, the prevalence of TNBC is 10-12% , while in India, the prevalence of TNBC 7–9 84 is reported to be significantly higher and up to 20-30% . Moreover, the proportion of 85 TNBC that presents with aggressive clinicopathological features such as younger and 86 pre-menopausal age at incidence, high grade is also higher in Indian population . With 87 no targetable treatment and higher proportions of aggressive disease at incidence, TNBC 88 poses a clinical challenge in India. 89 As of now, prognostication of TNBC is guided by clinicopathologic features such as 90 tumour size, proliferative index, lymph node involvement as well as age and co-existing 91 conditions. Standard treatment for TNBC includes neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), 10–12 92 followed by surgery . TNBC is reported to show better response to NACT than ER+ve 3,13,14 93 subtype i.e. 22% to 56% depending on the treatment regime used . Pathological 13,14 94 complete response in TNBC subtype is associated with better disease free survival . 95 Cases with residual disease have been shown to have a significantly higher chance of st 14–16 96 recurrence within 1 three years of treatment and reduced overall survival . 97 Recent studies have revealed tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) to be a promising 17–19 98 prognostic marker to predict response to therapy, specifically in TNBC . Tumor 99 infiltrating lymphocytes are cytotoxic lymphocytes infiltrating into tumor and stromal 20,21 100 regions as a host immune response to target cancer cells . Higher proportion of 101 infiltrating lymphocytes, especially in the stroma co-operate with the exogenous therapy 22,23 102 enhancing the anti-tumor effects of the therapy . Meta-analysis of 3770 patients with 103 higher TILs scores predicted complete response to NACT in 50% of the TNBC patients 104 and high TILs scores associated with better long-term survival over 3 years, emphasizing 24,25 105 prognostic significance of TILs in TNBC . 106 With high proportion of TNBC in India, understanding TILs distribution and its association 107 with response to therapy and disease outcome may help predict a subset that is 108 responsive and has better chance at disease free survival. If similar associations are 109 found as seen in meta-analysis of western cohorts, TILs evaluation may provide a 110 promise to predict a responsive subset of TNBC in India. In addition, TILs are easy to 111 assess on histopathology of tumor tissue biopsies thus can be cost-effective and easily 112 employable prognostic tool especially for low-resource countries like India. 114 Here we evaluate TILs with respect to clinicopathological features and outcomes of breast 115 cancer patient cohort from a single surgeon and oncologist breast cancer unit in India. All 116 the patients in the cohort have received similar treatment regimens and follow-up, giving medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 117 high confidence in uniformity regarding treatment strategies. Primary, pre-treatment 118 tumor tissue of 144 breast cancer patients are scored for stromal TILs according to the 119 guidelines provided by the International TILs working group . Association of TILs scores 120 with clinicopathological features such as age at diagnosis, menopausal status, grade, 121 tumor size, lymph node involvement and disease outcomes are evaluated. For patients 122 that received NACT (n=35), response to therapy and its association with TILs scores is 123 also evaluated. 125 Despite the size of the cohort, a significant association of high sTILs scores with TNBC 126 subtype is observed. Higher sTILs scores co-relate with better response to therapy and 127 better disease outcome specifically in TNBC compared to non-TNBC. sTILs analysis 128 within TNBC reflected distinct distribution between young, pre-menopausal patients as 129 compared to old and post-menopausal patients. Old, post-menopausal patients 130 presented with higher sTILs scores. Detailed co-relation with various clinical parameters 131 of TNBC in comparison to non-TNBC is reported here. 134 MATERIALS AND METHODS 135 Patient tissue samples and meta-data: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) 136 tissue samples and associated deidentified patient meta data are received from the clinic, 137 following appropriate patient consent and ethical approval (dated 21st July 2018 138 #IECHR/VB/2018/016). Patients who were diagnosed at or underwent/are undergoing th 139 treatment at the clinic from 2012 up to 15 March 2019 are included in the study. Patient 140 data, including diagnostic clinico-pathological data, type of therapy and post-treatment 141 follow-up data up to last follow-up /recurrence date/death is compiled and digitized. All 142 FFPE tissue blocks used are of primary (pre-treatment) tissue. Of the 144 FFPE tissue 143 samples used in this study, 106 are prepared from core biopsy tissue. 61 samples are of 144 the naive tumor tissue block prepared from surgically excised tissue. All surgery tissue 145 used is from patients who did not receive neo-adjuvant therapy. 146 Molecular subtypes are inferred based on patient immunohistochemistry reports. 147 Samples are divided into ER+/HER-, HER+ and TNBC based on ER/PR expression and 148 HER2 scores. ER+/HER- samples are with more than 1% ER expression and HER2 IHC 149 score of 0, 1 or 2 and FISH-negative. Samples with IHC HER2 grade 3 or grade 2 FISH 150 positive are taken as HER2+. Triple-negative samples are the ones with less than 1% ER 151 and PR expression and HER2 IHC grade 1 or 2 and FISH-negative. Pre-treatment 152 primary tumor tissue selection for these three molecular subtypes is described in the 153 flowchart in Figure 1. 154 For NACT, TNBC patients (n=14) were treated with Taxanes with or without an 155 Anthracycline/Cyclophosphamide (AC) or 5-Fluoro-Uracil/AC regimen. ER+ patients 156 (n=15) were treated with anti-estrogens such as Letrozole or Tamoxifen. For HER2 157 positive patients (n=6), AC followed by a Taxane with trastuzumab was administered. 158 For ACT, most TNBC cases received AC + Taxane as adjuvant therapy, some cases 159 received Fluorouracil in addition. For non-TNBC cases, HER2+ cases were medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 160 mostly treated with Trastuzumab with or without a Taxane, or FAC and 161 Taxane, some hormone positive HER2 cases received hormonal therapy. 162 Hormone positive cases were mostly treated with hormone therapy or with 163 an AC + Taxane regimen. 164 Response to NACT is computed for 33 out of 35 patients who underwent NACT. Post- 165 NACT, response to treatment is calculated by comparing cTcN values with ypTyPN. In 166 case of absence of residual tumor and absence of lymph node metastasis during 167 pathological examination of surgically removed tissue i.e. ypT0N0 status, response is 168 considered as pathologically complete response (pCR). The presence of residual tumor 169 and/or lymph node metastasis in surgically removed tissue is referred as Residual 170 disease (RD). Response in patients with residual disease is further subdivided into three 171 categories – partial, stable or progressive disease when compared to pre-treatment tumor 172 size and lymph node positivity (stage). Partial response cases show downstaging, stable 173 disease has no change in stage and progressive disease shows an increase in tumor size 174 and/or lymph node positivity. 175 Histopathology of FFPE tissue blocks 176 FFPE blocks once selected are processed for histopathology. Tumor sections of 4-5 µm 177 are obtained using Leica Microtome RM2255. Tissue slides are deparaffinized. Each slide 178 is cleaned and stained with a drop of undiluted Hematoxylin solution (Delafield, 38803) in 179 a humidifying chamber for 15 mins followed by 1% eosin (Qualigen Q39312). The slides 180 are then gradually dehydrated in ethanol solutions followed by Xylene. Slides are 181 mounted in DPX (Q18404). 182 Imaging of histopathology slides 183 All slides are imaged by OptraScan using OS-15 bright field digital scanner at 400X 184 magnification. Images are viewed using the ‘Image viewer’ software provided by Optra. 185 These are then converted to TIFF format and processed using Image Viewer Version 186 2.0.4 by OptraScan for scale bars. 187 Stromal Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes (sTILs) Scoring. 188 TILs percent distribution within stroma surrounding the tumor tissue is assessed from 189 H&E stained histopathology section of pre-treatment primary tumor tissue. The scoring is 190 done by a single pathologist (AP) according to the recommendations of The TILs Working 191 group . The pathologist was blinded to the clinical data as well as molecular subtypes of 192 the tissue. For our study, only stromal TILs are scored and used for the analysis. 193 Statistical Analysis 194 All statistical analysis is done using GraphPad Prism v.5. Demographic table was 195 prepared using IBM SPSS Statistics v. 21.0.0.0. Distribution of clinicopathological 196 characteristics within the cohort and breast cancer subtypes is tested using 2x2 (2x4 in 197 case of tumor size) Chi square contingency test. Mean age across subtypes is compared 198 using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test. Column statistics for sTILs are computed on 199 GraphPad Prism v.5 to calculate mean and SD/SE across each sub-category of clinical 200 characteristics. Significant difference in distribution between TNBC and on-TNBC sTILs medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 201 scores across clinicopathological characteristics is tested with one-way ANOVA followed 202 by Tukey's Multiple Comparison Test. Statistical analysis is done using GraphPad Prism 203 v.5 and graphs are plotted. 204 Disease outcomes are computed as follows: disease free survival (DFS) is calculated as 205 time in months from date of surgery till date of recurrence or last follow-up date. Overall 206 survival (OS) is calculated as time in months from the diagnosis date (biopsy date) till last 207 follow-up date or date of death due to disease. Kaplan-Meier survival plots for DFS and 208 OS for up to 3-years follow-up time are plotted and survival probabilities are computed by 209 Log-rank, Breslow and Tarone-Ware cores towards 3-year DFS and OS. 210 Distribution of response to NACT and breast cancer subtypes is tested using 2x4 Chi 211 square contingency test. Box plot for sTILs distribution across response to NACT i.e. pCR 212 and RD is plotted on GraphPad Prism v.5. Mean sTILs and SE for different response to 213 NACT i.e. complete, partial, stable or progressive is computed and plotted by using 214 GraphPad Prism v.5. Mean sTILs for different response to NACT across breast cancer 215 subtypes is calculated and plotted using GraphPad Prism v.5. 219 RESULTS 220 Breast Cancer Cohort Characteristics 221 Pre-treatment primary tumor tissues were identified for 144 patients from the biobank as 222 described in Figure 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the entire cohort and 223 according to their molecular subtypes (TNBC and non-TNBC) are presented in Table 1. 224 Average age of the cohort of 144 breast cancer patients is 53 ± 12 years with a range 225 from 28-86 years. TNBC patients (n=50) with mean age of 50, showed equal distribution 226 within young (< 50 years) and late (> 50 years) age. ER+ve (n=55) and HER2+ve (n=39) 227 patients presented higher mean age of 56 and 54 years with higher proportion (69% and 228 64%; respectively) in late age category. 62% TNBC patients presented at 229 postmenopausal age, and menopausal status is not significantly different across the 230 subtypes. ER+ and HER2+ patients show significantly higher proportion of low grade 231 (89% and 62%; respectively) tumours, while TNBC shows close to equal distribution 232 within low and high tumor grade (45% and 55%). Other than grade, tumor size (cT, pT), 233 lymph node status (cN, pN), lymph-vascular invasion (LVI) do not show significantly 234 different distribution across all three subtypes. Overall survival and disease free survival 235 data is available for 131 patients, with average follow-up of two years ranging from 0 236 months to 14.3 years, and median follow-up of 1.7 years. 237 To assess tumor response to NACT, patients who received NACT prior to surgery are 238 identified. Out of 144 patients, 35 (24%) had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) 239 according to their molecular subtypes as described in ‘Methods’ section. Of these 35, 8 240 patients show complete pathological response (pCR) as assessed by ypT0ypN0 status. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 241 Stromal TILs Scores Distribution Across Clinical Parameters 242 Stromal TILs (sTILs) distribution score is evaluated for each tissue sample from H&E 243 stained histopathology slide. Table S1A depicts the distribution of sTILs percent 244 distribution across clinical features of the cohort. Average sTILs scores show even 245 distribution across age, menopausal status, and lymph node status. Tumor grade and 246 tumor size (cT and pT) show significantly skewed sTILs distribution where higher grade 26–28 247 and larger size tumors are associated with higher sTILs percentages . 248 Stromal TILs Scores and Co-relation with Molecular Subtypes 249 sTILs scores are compared between TNBC, ER+ve and HER2+ve tumor tissue. 250 Representative images of each histopathology sections for each subtype are shown in 251 Figure 2A. TNBC tumors harbor wider range of sTILs scores (5 – 90%) as compared to 252 other subtypes (0-60% and 0-70% for ER+ve and HER2+ve tumors) as shown in the box 253 plot (Figure 1B). Mean sTILs score is significantly higher in TNBC (35.02 ± 3.93, n=50) 254 compared to ER+ve and HER2+ve tumors (11.02 ± 1.49, n = 55 and 21.64 ± 3.17, n = 255 39). sTILs scores are binned into three categories: Low (<10%), Moderate (10-40%) and 256 High (> 40%) (Figure S1A) according to International TILs Working Group 2014 guidelines 257 for TILs evaluation . Binned scores also reflect significantly skewed distribution between 258 TNBC and other two subtypes. Less than 5 and 10% of ER+ve and HER2+ve samples 259 refelct high TILs scores while close to 40% of TNBC tumors harbor high TILs scores. 260 (Figure S1B). 261 sTILs scores are compared between the subtypes according to their clinical parameters 262 (Table 2). Older age (>50) TNBC tumors reflect significantly higher proportion of sTILs 263 scores compared to ER2+patients; 38.72 ± 5.83, n=25 vs 10.74 ± 1.43, n=38 respectively 264 (Table 2 and Figure 2A). As expected, post-menopausal TNBC patients show significantly 265 higher proportion of sTILs scores as compared to ER2+ve patients; 37.86 ± 5.39,n=29 vs 266 10.08 ± 1.42, n=36 respectively (Table 2 and Figure 2B). No significant difference was seen 267 across mean sTILs between HER2+ve and TNBC patients. Overall distribution of sTILs 268 through low and high grades across subtypes is significantly different with high grade 269 TNBC tumors presenting with higher mean sTILs score; 42.56 ± 5.70 (n=27), followed by 270 high-grade HER2+ve patients; 31.00 ± 5.35 (n=15) and ER+ve patients; 17.50 ± 3.59 (n=6). 271 (Figure 2C). Mean sTILs scores across clinical (cT) and pathological (pT) tumor size, 272 lymph node (cN and pN) status showed higher scores for larger and lymph node negative 273 tumors, specifically in TNBC as compared to non-TNBC subtypes (Figure 3D-G). 274 Similarly, sTILs scores are significantly higher in LVI negative TNBC tumors as compared 275 to ER+ve tumors (33.73 ± 5.27, n=30 vs 11.05 ± 1.79, n=39) as represented in box graph 276 (Figure 3H). 277 sTILs Scores and response to NACT 278 Out of 144 breast cancer patients, 35 patients received NACT. For 33 patients, pre and 279 post-surgery records were available for cTcN and ypTypN data. ypT0ypN0 was taken as 280 pathologically complete response (pCR). Out of 33, 8 patients show pCR post-NACT. 281 Patients with complete response show wider range of sTILs scores compared to the rest 282 who had residual disease (RD) post-NACT (n=25) (Figure 4A). For the patients with medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 283 residual disease, their response to NACT is further segregated into ‘partial response’ 284 when the tumor is down staged by therapy, ‘stable disease’ when no change in the stage 285 occurred post-NACT, and progression in the stage after NACT is taken as ‘progressive 286 disease’ (Table S2). When sTILs scores are compared for each of these categories, 287 inverse pattern is observed with treatment response. Patients with complete pathological 288 response had highest mean sTILs scores of 30 ± 33 followed by partial response (22.90 289 ± 19.96) and stable disease (14.36 ± 15.60), and progressive disease with the least sTILs 290 score of 5% (Figure 4B). sTILs scores for TNBC patients show similar gradual reduction 291 for patients showing complete response (36.67 ± 36.01), followed by partial response 292 (25.80 ± 26.23), and goes lower for patients with stable disease (10.00 ± 8.66) (Figure 293 4F). 295 For the patients who received NACT, sTILs scores and response to NACT are further co- 296 related across subtypes. TNBC patients who show complete pathological response had 297 higher mean sTILs score (36.67%) compared to the rest (20%) (Fig 4E). Irrespective to 298 the response to treatment, ER+ve and HER2+ve patients had lower mean sTILs scores 299 (Figure 4C and 4D). 301 sTILs Scores and Disease Outcome 302 sTILs scores binned into three categories – low (<10%), moderate (10-40%) and high 303 (>40%) are analyzed for association with the disease outcome using Kaplan Meier 304 curves. The cohort shows no specific association of binned TILs scores with disease free 305 survival (Figure 5A). When subtypes are segregated differing outcomes for disease free 306 status with respect to binned sTILs scores is reflected depending on the subtype. High 307 sTILs scores in TNBC tumors are associated with longer relapse free life as compared to 308 low or moderate TILs scores, with hazard ratio of 0.49 by Cox regression (Figure 5D). On 309 the other hand, high sTILs shows significantly poor survival in HER2+ve patients. (Figure 310 5C), while ER+ve patients show similar trend as TNBC patients. For overall survival, the 311 cohort presented with 3 deaths due to disease, and all of which harbored moderate sTILs 312 scores (Figure 6). 316 DISCUSSION 317 This report is the first attempt to understand association of stromal TILs with 318 clinicopathological features of breast cancer, their outcomes and response to therapy for 319 an Indian cohort. The study is limited with a small cohort of 144 breast cancer patients, 320 nevertheless the analysis confirms established association of sTILs with response to 321 therapy and disease-free outcomes specifically in TNBC subtype. Further, this study 322 brings forward significant co-relation of sTILs with clinicopathological features of TNBC 323 subtype, perhaps specific to an Indian cohort. 324 The cohort of 144 breast cancer that contained 50 TNBC, 55 ER+ve and 39 HER2+ve 325 patients reflected uniform distribution of clinicopathological parameters except for age 326 and grade. TNBC presented with younger mean age as compared to non-TNBC and 327 comprised of higher proportion (50%) of young age (<50 years) and pre-menopausal medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 7,9 328 patients, unique to an India Breast Cancer Cohort . This is in contrast to the western 29,30 329 cohorts where young age TNBCs present at 29-34% . TNBC in our cohort also 330 presented with higher proportion of lower grade tumors (45%) as compared to western 331 cohorts (20.2%) . For patients who received NACT (n=33), 42.9% of TNBC patients had 332 complete pathological response to the therapy as opposed to 7% and 20% of ER+ and 333 HER2+ cohort. This is line with the current literature, where TNBCs indeed show better 3,13,14 334 response to therapy . 335 Stromal TILs scores in the cohort were uniformly distributed irrespective of the clinic- 336 pathological parameters of the tumors, except for grade and tumor size. Higher grade 337 and larger tumors showed significantly higher sTILs scores, as has been reported 27,32 338 elsewhere . Subtype wise comparison of sTILs scores co-related well with reported 23 24 339 studies and meta-analysis , where TNBC subtype presented with wider sTILs scores 340 distribution with a greater number of tumors with high sTILs scores (35%) as compared 341 to ER+ and HER2+ subtypes (11% and 22% respectively). Within TNBC, higher sTILs 342 scores co-related with better disease-free outcomes. With the limited number of patients 343 that received NACT, broader and higher sTILs scores associated with complete 344 pathological response. The gradual reduction in response to therapy with gradual 345 decrease in sTILs scores was confined to TNBC subtype, similar to that has been 346 reported in western population .The trends observed in our study are in line with the 347 established association of sTILs distribution and TNBC outcomes, although not 348 significant. Non-significant distribution patterns observed could be due to small cohort 349 size or may be specific to Indian context, something that needs to be explored with larger 350 cohort of breast cancer patients from India. 351 Apart from validating established associations of sTILs with disease outcome and 352 response to therapy, our study uncovers unique associations of sTILs scores with 353 clinicopathological features specifically in TNBC subtype. Significantly higher sTILs 354 scores were observed for old age, post-menopausal TNBC patients as compared to 355 young, pre-menopausal TNBC patients. This is in contrast to earlier reports, where a 356 meta-analysis of nine studies showed significantly lower sTILs scores for older age . 357 While in a cohort of 897 TNBC patients, no significant difference in sTILs scores was 358 noted between old and young age TNBC patients . It is known in the field that young age 359 TNBC patients, although with aggressive disease show better response to therapy and 34,35 360 higher rates of pCR than older age TNBC patients . Whether, higher sTILs scores in 361 older age, post-menopausal TNBC patients of our cohort translates into better response 362 to therapy and better disease outcome for them needs to be further analysed with a larger 363 cohort. Perhaps such association could possibly turn out to be specific to TNBC in an 364 Indian context. 365 Further analysis for sTILs distribution will provide validation to establish TILs as a 366 predictive tool to segregate old age post-menopausal TNBC patients who may benefit 367 from NACT and young age, pre-menopausal TNBC patients with aggressive disease who 368 are most likely to be non-responders to the therapy. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 369 REFERENCES: 370 1. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). GLOBOCAN 2018: Latest 371 global cancer data. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018. 372 2. Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Hicks DG, et al. Recommendations for human 373 epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast. J Clin Oncol. 374 2013;31(31):3997-4013. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984 375 3. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and 376 long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 377 2008;26(8):1275-1281. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4147 378 4. Kassam F, Enright K, Dent R, et al. Survival outcomes for patients with metastatic 379 triple-negative breast cancer: Implications for clinical practice and trial design. Clin 380 Breast Cancer. 2009;9(1):29-33. doi:10.3816/CBC.2009.n.005 381 5. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive Analysis of 382 Estrogen Receptor ( ER ) - and HER2-Negative Invasive Breast Cancer , the so- 383 Called Triple-Negative Phenotype: A Population-Based Study from the California 384 Cancer Registry. 2007;(March). doi:10.1002/cncr.22618 385 6. Lin NU, Vanderplas A, Hughes ME, et al. Clinicopathologic features, patterns of 386 recurrence, and survival among women with triple-negative breast cancer in the 387 National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cancer. 2012;118(22):5463-5472. 388 doi:10.1002/cncr.27581 389 7. Kulkarni A, Kelkar D., Parikh N, Shashidhara LS, Koppiker CB, Kulkarni M. Meta- 390 analysis of prevalence of Triple Negative Breast Cancer and its clinical features at 391 incidence in Indian Breast Cancer Patients. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020;In press. 392 8. Sandhu GS, Erqou S, Patterson H, Mathew A. Prevalence of Triple-Negative 393 Breast Cancer in India: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Glob Oncol. 394 2016;2(6):412-421. doi:10.1200/jgo.2016.005397 395 9. Thakur KK, Bordoloi D, Kunnumakkara AB. Alarming Burden of Triple-Negative 396 Breast Cancer in India. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18(3):e393-e399. 397 doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2017.07.013 398 10. Mehanna J, Haddad FGH, Eid R, Lambertini M, Kourie HR. Triple-negative breast 399 cancer: Current perspective on the evolving therapeutic landscape. Int J Womens 400 Health. 2019;11:431-437. doi:10.2147/IJWH.S178349 401 11. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long- 402 term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 403 2014;384(9938):164-172. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8 404 12. Telli ML, Gradishar WJ, Ward JH. NCCN Guidelines Updates: Breast Cancer. J 405 Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(55):552-555. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2019.5006 406 13. Von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic 407 complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various 408 intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):1796-1804. 409 doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8595 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 410 14. Caparica R, Lambertini M, de Azambuja E. How I treat metastatic triple-negative 411 breast cancer. ESMO Open. 2019;4(Suppl 2):e000504. doi:10.1136/esmoopen- 412 2019-000504 413 15. Sharma P, Lopez-Tarruella S, García-Saenz JA, et al. Pathological Response and 414 Survival in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Carboplatin plus 415 Docetaxel. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(23):5820-5829. doi:10.1158/1078- 416 0432.CCR-18-0585 417 16. Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R, et al. Long-Term Prognostic Risk After 418 Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Associated With Residual Cancer Burden and Breast 419 Cancer Subtype. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1049-1060. 420 doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.63.1010 421 17. Denkert C, Loibl S, Noske A, et al. Tumor-associated lymphocytes as an 422 independent predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. 423 J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):105-113. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.23.7370 424 18. Denkert C, Von Minckwitz G, Brase JC, et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and 425 response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without carboplatin in human 426 epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive and triple-negative primary breast 427 cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(9):983-991. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.58.1967 428 19. Castaneda CA, Mittendorf E, Casavilca S, et al. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in 429 triple negative breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. World J Clin 430 Oncol. 2016;7(5):387-394. doi:10.5306/wjco.v7.i5.387 431 20. Anichini A, Fossau G. Clonal analysis of the cytolytic T-cell response to human 432 tumors. Immunol Today. 1987;8(No. 12):385-389. doi:10.1016/0167- 433 5699(87)90215-5. 434 21. Naukkarinen A, Syrjänen KJ. Quantitative immunohistochemical analysis of 435 mononuclear infiltrates in breast carcinomas–correlation with tumour 436 differentiation. J Pathol. 1990;160:217-222. doi:10.1002/path.1711600307 437 22. Khoury T, Nagrale V, Opyrchal M, Peng X, Yao S. Prognostic Significance of 438 Stromal Versus Intratumoral Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Different Subtypes of 439 Breast Cancer Treated with Cytotoxic Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Appl 440 Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2018;(716):1-20. 441 doi:10.1097/PAI.0000000000000466.Prognostic 442 23. Salgado R, Denkert C, Demaria S, et al. The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating 443 lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an International TILs 444 Working Group 2014. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(2):259-271. 445 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu450 446 24. Denkert C, von Minckwitz G, Darb-Esfahani S, et al. Tumour-infiltrating 447 lymphocytes and prognosis in different subtypes of breast cancer: a pooled 448 analysis of 3771 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Lancet Oncol. 2018. 449 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30904-X 450 25. Loi S, Drubay D, Adams S, Pruneri G, Francis PA. Tumor-In fi ltrating 451 Lymphocytes and Prognosis : A Pooled Individual Patient Analysis of Early-Stage medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 452 Triple-Negative Breast Cancers abstract. Am J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(7):559-570. 453 doi:10.1200/JCO.18.01010 454 26. Miyoshi Y, Shien T, Ogiya A, et al. Associations in tumor infiltrating lymphocytes 455 between clinicopathological factors and clinical outcomes in estrogen receptor- 456 positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 negative breast cancer. 457 Oncol Lett. 2019;17(2):2177-2186. doi:10.3892/ol.2018.9853 458 27. Kurozumi, Sasagu; Matsumoto, Hiroshi; Kurosumi, Masafumi; Inoue , Kenichi; 459 Fujii, Takaaki; Horiguchi, Jun; Shirabe, Ken; Oyama, Tetsunari; Kuwano H. 460 Prognostic significance of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes for oestrogen receptor- 461 negative breast cancer without lymph node metastasis. Oncol Lett. 462 2019;17(3):2647-2656. doi:10.3892/ol.2019.9938 463 28. Sawe RT, Mining SK, Ofulla A V., et al. Tumor infiltrating leukocyte density is 464 independent of tumor grade and molecular subtype in aggressive breast cancer of 465 Western Kenya. Trop Med Health. 2017;45(1):1-11. doi:10.1186/s41182-017- 466 0059-4 467 29. Tano S V., Kavanaugh MM, Peddi P, Mansour RP, Shi R, Burton G Von. Triple 468 negative breast cancer (TNBC): Analysis of age and stage distribution and 469 survival between African American and Caucasian women in a predominant low- 470 income population. J Clin Oncol. 2017. doi:10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.e12586 471 30. Howlader N, Cronin KA, Kurian AW, Andridge R. Differences in breast cancer 472 survival by molecular subtypes in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol 473 Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27(6):619-626. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0627 474 31. Plasilova ML, Hayse B, Killelea BK, Horowitz NR, Chagpar AB, Lannin DR. 475 Features of triple-negative breast cancer Analysis of 38,813 cases from the 476 national cancer database. Med (United States). 2016;95(35). 477 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000004614 478 32. Loi S, Drubay D, Adams S, et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and prognosis: A 479 pooled individual patient analysis of early-stage triple-negative breast cancers. J 480 Clin Oncol. 2019. doi:10.1200/JCO.18.01010 481 33. Pruneri G, Vingiani A, Bagnardi V, et al. Clinical validity of tumor-infiltrating 482 lymphocytes analysis in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 483 2016;27(2):249-256. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv571 484 34. Loibl S, Jackisch C, Lederer B, et al. Outcome after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 485 young breast cancer patients : a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 486 eight prospectively randomized controlled trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 487 2015;152(2):377-387. doi:10.1007/s10549-015-3479-z 488 35. Waldenfels G Von, Loibl S, Furlanetto J, et al. Outcome after neoadjuvant 489 chemotherapy in elderly breast cancer patients – a pooled analysis of individual 490 patient data from eight prospectively randomized controlled trials. Oncotarget. 491 2018;9(20):15168-15179. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.24586 492 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 493 Figure Legends 495 Figure 1: Flow chart to explain selection of primary breast cancer tissue. 496 Primary tumor tissue selection from retrospectively (2010-March 2019) collected PCCM 497 biobank. Out of 653 patients breast tissues deposited with patient consent at PCCM 498 biobank, 233 were of primary tumor (172 biopsy tissue and 61 naïve surgery tissue). Out 499 of these, molecular subtypes were assigned for 185 for whom IHC reports were available. 500 Out of 185, 144 tissue samples with good tissue integrity were sectioned, stained with 501 H&E and then scored for stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes following International 502 TILs working group guidelines. 504 Table 1: Demographic and clinical features of breast cancer patient cohort. 505 Number of patients with breast cancer were grouped into , ER+/PR+/PR-/HER2- , HER2+ 506 and TNBC. The number of patients are listed according to the clinical variables reported 507 at the time of diagnosis as per both the subtypes. Clinical parameters such as age at 508 diagnosis, menopausal status, tumour grade and radiological tumor size, lymph node 509 positivity and LVI are listed. For patients who did not receive NACT/NAHT, pT and pN 510 retrieved from the surgery pathology report are noted. For patients who received 511 NACT/NAHT, pathological response to the therapy is noted based on their ypTN status. 512 Total number of patients with follow-up and time to follow-up and follow-up status are also 513 noted. Any skewed distribution of clinical parameters in the cohort was tested using the 514 2*3 (4*3 in case of tumor size) χ2 contingency test with GraphPad Prism v.5. Red font 515 indicates significant p-values 516 *For comparing mean age differences among the subtypes, 1-way ANOVA was used. 517 LVI- lympho-vascular invasion, Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), pCR- pathological 518 complete response. 519 Figure 2: sTILs distribution across all three subtypes tumor tissue. 520 A. Images depicting stromal TILs distribution. Representative images of sTILs scores for 521 ER+(left panel), HER2+(middle panel) & TNBC (right panel). Percent sTILs score for each 522 of the tissue is mentioned on the figure. Blue lines are the scale bars representing 200um. 523 B. Box plot shows distribution of sTILs scores across ER+, HER2+ and TNBC tumor 524 tissue. The horizontal line represents median. Error bars represent Tukey’s whiskers. The 525 actual number of patient samples (n) are shown in the box plot. The distribution of the 526 sTILs scores between tissue samples across each subtype was tested for statistical 527 significance with Student’s t-test, using GraphPad Prism v.5. * represents p-value <0.05, 528 ** represents p-value <0.01, and *** represents p-value <0.0001. 529 Table 2: Mean sTILs scores with respect to clinicopathological features of breast 530 cancer subtypes. 531 Mean ± S.E sTILs scores across clinicopathological parameters including age at 532 diagnosis, menopausal status of patients, tumor grade, radiological and pathological 533 tumor size and lymph node status and LVI according to the molecular subtypes are 534 presented. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 535 The statistical analysis was done in GraphPad Prism v.5. One-way ANOVA was 536 performed to compute significant difference in mean sTILs scores between breast 537 cancer subtypes and for comparing mean sTILs scores across each category and 538 subtypes. 539 Red font indicates significant p-values. 540 *LVI- lympho-vascular invasion 541 Figure 3. sTILs distribution across clinico-pathological parameters with respect to 542 subtypes. 543 Box plots depicting mean sTILs scores for ER+, HER2+ and TNBC tumor tissue across 544 A. early & late age, B. pre & post-menopausal status, C. low (I/II)and high (III) grade 545 tumors, D. clinical tumor size; T1 and T2, E. clinical lymph-node status – positive and 546 negative, F. pathological tumor size; T1 and T2, G. pathological lymph-node status – 547 positive and negative, H. LVI status - positive & negative. The number of tissue samples 548 (n) are shown on top of each bar. Error bars represent Tukey’s whiskers. 549 Unpaired t-test was performed to test for significance across each parameter between 550 individual subtypes. Only grade shows significant differences across all three subtypes, 551 which is represented here. p-value <0.05 is represented with ‘*’, <0.01 with ‘**’ and, 552 <0.0001 with ‘***’. ns= non-significant. GraphPad Prism v.5 was used for the graphs and 553 ANOVA test. 554 Figure 4: Mean sTILs scores and its association with response to NACT. 555 A. sTILs score distribution is plotted for patients who showed complete pathological 556 response (pCR) or had residual disease (RD) post-NACT. Box plots with horizontal lines 557 show median sTILs score and The horizontal line represents, and error bars represent 558 Tukey’s whiskers. Mean sTILs across both groups are not significantly different as tested 559 by two-tailed unpaired t-test. B. Box plot representing mean sTILS score for all the 560 patients that received NACT and showed either complete orpartial pathological response 561 or had a stable or progressive disease at the time of surgery. Error bars represent Tukey’s 562 whiskers. C. Mean sTILs scores for ER+ patients who had pCR or residual disease (RD). 563 No statistics could be computed. Error bars represent Tukey’s whiskers. D. Mean sTILs 564 scores for HER+ patients who had pCR or residual disease (RD). No statistics could be 565 computed. Error bars represent Tukey’s whiskers. E. Mean sTILs scores for TNBC 566 patients who had pCR or residual disease (RD). Unpaired t-test was run for sTILs score 567 across pCR and RD. Error bars represent Tukey’s whiskers. F. Box plot representing 568 mean sTILS score only for TNBC patients that received NACT and showed either 569 complete or partial pathological response or had a stable or progressive disease at the 570 time of surgery. Error bars represent Tukey’s whiskers. 571 *pCR-pathological complete response, RD-Residual disease 572 Figure 5: Three year disease-free survival with respect to binned sTILs scores. 573 Disease free survival was calculated as number of months from the date of surgery till the 574 recurrence diagnosis date or last follow-up date. The cut-off for DFS calculation was taken medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 575 at 3- years and calculated for a total of 131 patients. Kaplan-Meier survival plots for 576 disease-free survival (DFS) according to low, moderate & high sTILs score bins for A. the 577 entire cohort, B. ER+ patients and C. HER2+ patients and D. TNBC patients. In the graph, 578 X-axis represents time scale in months, Y-axis represents the survival probability. Blue- 579 lines indicate patients with low sTILs score, red-line indicates patients with moderate 580 score & green indicates high sTILs scores. Each drop shown as vertical line represents 581 an event i.e. local or distant recurrence. Survival probability with respect to sTILs binned 582 scores is tested using IBM SPSS Statistics v. 21.0.0.0. 583 Figure 6: Three year overall survival with respect to binned sTILs scores. 584 Overall survival was calculated as number of months from the date of biopsy till the last 585 follow-up date. The cut-off for OS calculation was taken at 3- years and calculated for a 586 total of 137 patients. Kaplan-meier survival plots showing overall survival (OS) of patients 587 according to low, moderate & high sTILs score bins for A. the entire cohort and B. ER+ 588 patients and C.TNBC patients. In the graph, X-axis represents time scale in months, Y- 589 axis represents the survival probability. Blue-line indicates patients with low sTILs score, 590 red-line indicates patients with moderate score & green indicates high sTILs scores. Each 591 drop shown as vertical line represents an event i.e. death due to disease. Survival 592 probability for each factor is tested by using IBM SPSS Statistics v. 21.0.0.0. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 593 Supplementary Legends: 595 Table S1: Mean sTILs scores with respect to clinical features of the cohort. 596 Mean ± S.E of sTILs scores across clinicopathological parameters including age at 597 diagnosis, menopausal status of patients, tumor grade, radiological tumor size and lymph 598 node status and LVI. For comparing mean TILs score differences across each parameter 599 two-tailed, unpaired t-test was performed on GraphPad Prism v.5. 600 #Red font indicates significant p-values. 601 * LVI- lympho-vascular invasion 603 Figure S1: Binned sTILs distribution across all breast cancer subtypes tumor 604 tissue. 605 A. Representative images depicting stromal TILs distribution in tumor. Images of binned 606 TILs scores are presented here for non-TNBC (left panel) & TNBC (right panel). 607 Representative images of Low (<10%), Moderate (10%-39%) and High (>40%) sTILs 608 scores as imaged on OptraScan at 10X magnification and processed using ImageViewer 609 2.0.4. Blue lines are the scale bars representing 200um. 610 B. Bar graph demonstrating percent frequency across binned categories of sTILs scores 611 in ER+, HER2+ and TNBC subtypes. The number of patients in each bin (n) are shown 612 on top of the bars. Association of categorical sTILs variable (Low, Moderate and High) 613 across breast cancer subtypes was tested for significance by 3*3 χ2 test using GraphPad 614 Prism v.5. 616 Table S2: Response to NACT across breast cancer subtypes. 617 Number of patients treated with NACT and their response to NACT is recorded as 618 complete, partial, no response as in stable disease or progressive disease. Number of 619 patients in each response category for ER+, HER2+ and TNBC are given in the table. 620 The distribution across subtypes for pCR status was tested using χ2 test and was found 621 to be non-significant. 622 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure 1: Flow chart to explain selection of primary breast cancer tissue Number of IDC patients 2010-March 2019 (n=653) Primary tissue With IHC reports available (n=233) (n=185) Biopsy tissue (n=172) ER (n=85) HER2 (n=45) Naïve surgery tissue TNBC (n =55) (n=61) Included in analysis (n=144) ER+ (n=55) HER2+ (n=39) TNBC (n=50) 623 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Table 1: Demographic and clinical features of breast cancer patient cohort medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Table S1: Mean sTILs scores with respect to clinical parameters of the cohort medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure 2: sTILs distribution across all three subtypes tumor tissue. A. TNBC HER+ ER+ a. d. g. <10% sTILs <5% sTILs 20% sTILs b. e. h. i. 20% sTILs 50% sTILs 30% sTILs c. f. i. 60% sTILs 70% sTILs 80% sTILs B. TILs score distribution across subtypes *** 80 ** n=50 n=39 n=55 ER+ HER2+ TNBC Subtypes Mean sTILs medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure S1: Binned sTILs distribution across all breast cancer subtypes tumor tissue. A. Non-TNBC TNBC B. ER+ HER2+ TNBC p-value=0.0001 n=25 by c2 test n=33 n=24 n=20 n=16 n=9 n=10 n=5 n=2 Low Moderate High TILs binned score High sTILs Moderate sTILs Low sTILs Percent number of patients medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure 3: sTILs mean scores compared across molecular subtypes Menopausal status Age A. B. n=29 n=18 n=25 n=29 n=25 n=25 n=38 n=8 n=14 n=9 n=36 n=17 TNBC ER+ HER+ ER+ HER+ TNBC pre-menopausal post-menopausal Early age(<50) Late age(³50) Tumor size C. Grade D. 80 ** n=27 n=15 n=22 n=37 n=7 n=7 n=28 n=6 n=24 n=21 n=46 n=28 TNBC TNBC ER+ HER+ ER+ HER+ T1 T2 Low Grade(I/II) High Grade(III) Tumor size(pT) Lymph node(cN) E. F. n=26 n=20 n=24 n=5 n=8 n=18 n=26 20 n=4 n=22 n=14 n=25 n=22 ER+ HER+ TNBC ER+ HER+ TNBC T1 T2 positive negative LVI Lymph node(pN) G. H. 100 100 60 60 n=23 n=12 n=30 n=10 n=19 n=26 n=12 n=11 n=23 n=39 n=8 n=12 ER+ HER+ TNBC TNBC ER+ HER+ positive negative positive negative sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Table S2: Response to NACT across breast cancer subtypes medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure 4: Mean sTILs scores and its association with response to NACT A. B. All breast cancer All breast cancer ns 40 40 n = 8 n=8 n=10 20 20 n = 25 n=14 n=1 pCR RD Complete Partial Stable Progressive C. D. ER+ HER2+ n = 4 n = 13 40 n = 1 n = 1 pCR RD pCR RD E. F. TNBC TNBC ns 60 60 40 40 n = 6 n=6 n=5 n=3 20 n = 8 20 n=0 0 0 Complete Partial Stable Progressive pCR RD sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure 5: Disease-free survival according to sTILs scores. DFS for ER+ patients DFS for All breast cancer patients B. A. C. DFS for HER+ patients D. DFS for TNBC patients medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure 6: Overall survival according to sTILs scores. OS for ER+ patients OS for All breast cancer patients B. A. OS for TNBC patients C. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png medRxiv medRxiv

Stromal Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes (sTILs) as a putative prognostic marker to identify a responsive subset of TNBC in an Indian Breast Cancer Cohort.

Loading next page...
 
/lp/medrxiv/stromal-tumor-infiltrating-lymphocytes-stils-as-a-putative-prognostic-NeiJxhAjF0

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
medRxiv
Copyright
© 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.
DOI
10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

43 Objectives 44 Prognostic significance of stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) is evaluated to 45 identify a responsive subset of TNBC in an Indian cohort of breast cancer patients. 46 Methods 47 A retrospective cohort of breast cancer patients from a single onco-surgeon breast cancer 48 clinic treated with uniform treatment strategy across is evaluated for sTILs. FFPE tissue 49 of primary tumor of invasive breast carcinoma are collected with ethical approvals. Tumor 50 sections blinded for subtypes are stained with H&E and scored for sTILs by a pathologist 51 following Immuno-Oncology TILs working group’s scoring guidelines. 52 Results 53 Analysis of 144 primary breast tumors for sTILs scores re-enforces significantly higher 54 infiltration in TNBC tumors than HER2+ and ER+ tumors. Higher sTILs scores co-relate 55 with gradually incremental pathological response to therapy specifically in TNBC subset 56 and with better disease-free survival outcomes. Within TNBC, older and post-menopausal 57 patients harbor higher scores of sTILs. 58 Conclusion 59 Despite a small cohort of breast cancer patients, TNBC subtype reflected significantly 60 higher scores of sTILs with better response to therapy and disease-free outcomes as 61 compared to other breast cancer subtypes. A larger number of breast cancer patients 62 from an Indian cohort will strengthen the findings to establish sTILs as a marker to identify 63 a responsive subset of TNBC. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 64 Key points: 65 Key point 1: 66 This is a first attempt to understand the significance of stromal tumor-infiltrating 67 lymphocytes in a breast cancer cohort from India, where higher recurrence and mortality 68 rates are observed. 69 Key point 2: 70 TNBC tumors show higher sTILs infiltration compared to non-TNBC patients. Higher 71 sTILs scores within TNBC co-relates with better therapy response disease-free survival. 72 Key point 3: 73 Higher sTILs scores in TNBC tumors in an Indian cohort showed a novel and unique 74 association with old age and post-menopausal patients. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 75 INTRODUCTION 76 Breast Cancer is the leading cause for cancer related deaths in India, with close to 50% 77 mortality rate . Though there are effective treatments available for Breast Cancer, most 78 targeted therapies are available for subtypes that express the molecular receptors ER, 79 PR and/or HER2. A subtype that lacks expression of these receptors; triple negative 80 breast cancer (TNBC) cannot avail targeted therapy . With lack of targeted treatment, 81 TNBC is an aggressive subset of breast cancer with higher rates of recurrence and lower 3,4 82 overall survival . 5,6 83 Worldwide, the prevalence of TNBC is 10-12% , while in India, the prevalence of TNBC 7–9 84 is reported to be significantly higher and up to 20-30% . Moreover, the proportion of 85 TNBC that presents with aggressive clinicopathological features such as younger and 86 pre-menopausal age at incidence, high grade is also higher in Indian population . With 87 no targetable treatment and higher proportions of aggressive disease at incidence, TNBC 88 poses a clinical challenge in India. 89 As of now, prognostication of TNBC is guided by clinicopathologic features such as 90 tumour size, proliferative index, lymph node involvement as well as age and co-existing 91 conditions. Standard treatment for TNBC includes neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), 10–12 92 followed by surgery . TNBC is reported to show better response to NACT than ER+ve 3,13,14 93 subtype i.e. 22% to 56% depending on the treatment regime used . Pathological 13,14 94 complete response in TNBC subtype is associated with better disease free survival . 95 Cases with residual disease have been shown to have a significantly higher chance of st 14–16 96 recurrence within 1 three years of treatment and reduced overall survival . 97 Recent studies have revealed tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) to be a promising 17–19 98 prognostic marker to predict response to therapy, specifically in TNBC . Tumor 99 infiltrating lymphocytes are cytotoxic lymphocytes infiltrating into tumor and stromal 20,21 100 regions as a host immune response to target cancer cells . Higher proportion of 101 infiltrating lymphocytes, especially in the stroma co-operate with the exogenous therapy 22,23 102 enhancing the anti-tumor effects of the therapy . Meta-analysis of 3770 patients with 103 higher TILs scores predicted complete response to NACT in 50% of the TNBC patients 104 and high TILs scores associated with better long-term survival over 3 years, emphasizing 24,25 105 prognostic significance of TILs in TNBC . 106 With high proportion of TNBC in India, understanding TILs distribution and its association 107 with response to therapy and disease outcome may help predict a subset that is 108 responsive and has better chance at disease free survival. If similar associations are 109 found as seen in meta-analysis of western cohorts, TILs evaluation may provide a 110 promise to predict a responsive subset of TNBC in India. In addition, TILs are easy to 111 assess on histopathology of tumor tissue biopsies thus can be cost-effective and easily 112 employable prognostic tool especially for low-resource countries like India. 114 Here we evaluate TILs with respect to clinicopathological features and outcomes of breast 115 cancer patient cohort from a single surgeon and oncologist breast cancer unit in India. All 116 the patients in the cohort have received similar treatment regimens and follow-up, giving medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 117 high confidence in uniformity regarding treatment strategies. Primary, pre-treatment 118 tumor tissue of 144 breast cancer patients are scored for stromal TILs according to the 119 guidelines provided by the International TILs working group . Association of TILs scores 120 with clinicopathological features such as age at diagnosis, menopausal status, grade, 121 tumor size, lymph node involvement and disease outcomes are evaluated. For patients 122 that received NACT (n=35), response to therapy and its association with TILs scores is 123 also evaluated. 125 Despite the size of the cohort, a significant association of high sTILs scores with TNBC 126 subtype is observed. Higher sTILs scores co-relate with better response to therapy and 127 better disease outcome specifically in TNBC compared to non-TNBC. sTILs analysis 128 within TNBC reflected distinct distribution between young, pre-menopausal patients as 129 compared to old and post-menopausal patients. Old, post-menopausal patients 130 presented with higher sTILs scores. Detailed co-relation with various clinical parameters 131 of TNBC in comparison to non-TNBC is reported here. 134 MATERIALS AND METHODS 135 Patient tissue samples and meta-data: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) 136 tissue samples and associated deidentified patient meta data are received from the clinic, 137 following appropriate patient consent and ethical approval (dated 21st July 2018 138 #IECHR/VB/2018/016). Patients who were diagnosed at or underwent/are undergoing th 139 treatment at the clinic from 2012 up to 15 March 2019 are included in the study. Patient 140 data, including diagnostic clinico-pathological data, type of therapy and post-treatment 141 follow-up data up to last follow-up /recurrence date/death is compiled and digitized. All 142 FFPE tissue blocks used are of primary (pre-treatment) tissue. Of the 144 FFPE tissue 143 samples used in this study, 106 are prepared from core biopsy tissue. 61 samples are of 144 the naive tumor tissue block prepared from surgically excised tissue. All surgery tissue 145 used is from patients who did not receive neo-adjuvant therapy. 146 Molecular subtypes are inferred based on patient immunohistochemistry reports. 147 Samples are divided into ER+/HER-, HER+ and TNBC based on ER/PR expression and 148 HER2 scores. ER+/HER- samples are with more than 1% ER expression and HER2 IHC 149 score of 0, 1 or 2 and FISH-negative. Samples with IHC HER2 grade 3 or grade 2 FISH 150 positive are taken as HER2+. Triple-negative samples are the ones with less than 1% ER 151 and PR expression and HER2 IHC grade 1 or 2 and FISH-negative. Pre-treatment 152 primary tumor tissue selection for these three molecular subtypes is described in the 153 flowchart in Figure 1. 154 For NACT, TNBC patients (n=14) were treated with Taxanes with or without an 155 Anthracycline/Cyclophosphamide (AC) or 5-Fluoro-Uracil/AC regimen. ER+ patients 156 (n=15) were treated with anti-estrogens such as Letrozole or Tamoxifen. For HER2 157 positive patients (n=6), AC followed by a Taxane with trastuzumab was administered. 158 For ACT, most TNBC cases received AC + Taxane as adjuvant therapy, some cases 159 received Fluorouracil in addition. For non-TNBC cases, HER2+ cases were medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 160 mostly treated with Trastuzumab with or without a Taxane, or FAC and 161 Taxane, some hormone positive HER2 cases received hormonal therapy. 162 Hormone positive cases were mostly treated with hormone therapy or with 163 an AC + Taxane regimen. 164 Response to NACT is computed for 33 out of 35 patients who underwent NACT. Post- 165 NACT, response to treatment is calculated by comparing cTcN values with ypTyPN. In 166 case of absence of residual tumor and absence of lymph node metastasis during 167 pathological examination of surgically removed tissue i.e. ypT0N0 status, response is 168 considered as pathologically complete response (pCR). The presence of residual tumor 169 and/or lymph node metastasis in surgically removed tissue is referred as Residual 170 disease (RD). Response in patients with residual disease is further subdivided into three 171 categories – partial, stable or progressive disease when compared to pre-treatment tumor 172 size and lymph node positivity (stage). Partial response cases show downstaging, stable 173 disease has no change in stage and progressive disease shows an increase in tumor size 174 and/or lymph node positivity. 175 Histopathology of FFPE tissue blocks 176 FFPE blocks once selected are processed for histopathology. Tumor sections of 4-5 µm 177 are obtained using Leica Microtome RM2255. Tissue slides are deparaffinized. Each slide 178 is cleaned and stained with a drop of undiluted Hematoxylin solution (Delafield, 38803) in 179 a humidifying chamber for 15 mins followed by 1% eosin (Qualigen Q39312). The slides 180 are then gradually dehydrated in ethanol solutions followed by Xylene. Slides are 181 mounted in DPX (Q18404). 182 Imaging of histopathology slides 183 All slides are imaged by OptraScan using OS-15 bright field digital scanner at 400X 184 magnification. Images are viewed using the ‘Image viewer’ software provided by Optra. 185 These are then converted to TIFF format and processed using Image Viewer Version 186 2.0.4 by OptraScan for scale bars. 187 Stromal Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes (sTILs) Scoring. 188 TILs percent distribution within stroma surrounding the tumor tissue is assessed from 189 H&E stained histopathology section of pre-treatment primary tumor tissue. The scoring is 190 done by a single pathologist (AP) according to the recommendations of The TILs Working 191 group . The pathologist was blinded to the clinical data as well as molecular subtypes of 192 the tissue. For our study, only stromal TILs are scored and used for the analysis. 193 Statistical Analysis 194 All statistical analysis is done using GraphPad Prism v.5. Demographic table was 195 prepared using IBM SPSS Statistics v. 21.0.0.0. Distribution of clinicopathological 196 characteristics within the cohort and breast cancer subtypes is tested using 2x2 (2x4 in 197 case of tumor size) Chi square contingency test. Mean age across subtypes is compared 198 using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test. Column statistics for sTILs are computed on 199 GraphPad Prism v.5 to calculate mean and SD/SE across each sub-category of clinical 200 characteristics. Significant difference in distribution between TNBC and on-TNBC sTILs medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 201 scores across clinicopathological characteristics is tested with one-way ANOVA followed 202 by Tukey's Multiple Comparison Test. Statistical analysis is done using GraphPad Prism 203 v.5 and graphs are plotted. 204 Disease outcomes are computed as follows: disease free survival (DFS) is calculated as 205 time in months from date of surgery till date of recurrence or last follow-up date. Overall 206 survival (OS) is calculated as time in months from the diagnosis date (biopsy date) till last 207 follow-up date or date of death due to disease. Kaplan-Meier survival plots for DFS and 208 OS for up to 3-years follow-up time are plotted and survival probabilities are computed by 209 Log-rank, Breslow and Tarone-Ware cores towards 3-year DFS and OS. 210 Distribution of response to NACT and breast cancer subtypes is tested using 2x4 Chi 211 square contingency test. Box plot for sTILs distribution across response to NACT i.e. pCR 212 and RD is plotted on GraphPad Prism v.5. Mean sTILs and SE for different response to 213 NACT i.e. complete, partial, stable or progressive is computed and plotted by using 214 GraphPad Prism v.5. Mean sTILs for different response to NACT across breast cancer 215 subtypes is calculated and plotted using GraphPad Prism v.5. 219 RESULTS 220 Breast Cancer Cohort Characteristics 221 Pre-treatment primary tumor tissues were identified for 144 patients from the biobank as 222 described in Figure 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the entire cohort and 223 according to their molecular subtypes (TNBC and non-TNBC) are presented in Table 1. 224 Average age of the cohort of 144 breast cancer patients is 53 ± 12 years with a range 225 from 28-86 years. TNBC patients (n=50) with mean age of 50, showed equal distribution 226 within young (< 50 years) and late (> 50 years) age. ER+ve (n=55) and HER2+ve (n=39) 227 patients presented higher mean age of 56 and 54 years with higher proportion (69% and 228 64%; respectively) in late age category. 62% TNBC patients presented at 229 postmenopausal age, and menopausal status is not significantly different across the 230 subtypes. ER+ and HER2+ patients show significantly higher proportion of low grade 231 (89% and 62%; respectively) tumours, while TNBC shows close to equal distribution 232 within low and high tumor grade (45% and 55%). Other than grade, tumor size (cT, pT), 233 lymph node status (cN, pN), lymph-vascular invasion (LVI) do not show significantly 234 different distribution across all three subtypes. Overall survival and disease free survival 235 data is available for 131 patients, with average follow-up of two years ranging from 0 236 months to 14.3 years, and median follow-up of 1.7 years. 237 To assess tumor response to NACT, patients who received NACT prior to surgery are 238 identified. Out of 144 patients, 35 (24%) had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) 239 according to their molecular subtypes as described in ‘Methods’ section. Of these 35, 8 240 patients show complete pathological response (pCR) as assessed by ypT0ypN0 status. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 241 Stromal TILs Scores Distribution Across Clinical Parameters 242 Stromal TILs (sTILs) distribution score is evaluated for each tissue sample from H&E 243 stained histopathology slide. Table S1A depicts the distribution of sTILs percent 244 distribution across clinical features of the cohort. Average sTILs scores show even 245 distribution across age, menopausal status, and lymph node status. Tumor grade and 246 tumor size (cT and pT) show significantly skewed sTILs distribution where higher grade 26–28 247 and larger size tumors are associated with higher sTILs percentages . 248 Stromal TILs Scores and Co-relation with Molecular Subtypes 249 sTILs scores are compared between TNBC, ER+ve and HER2+ve tumor tissue. 250 Representative images of each histopathology sections for each subtype are shown in 251 Figure 2A. TNBC tumors harbor wider range of sTILs scores (5 – 90%) as compared to 252 other subtypes (0-60% and 0-70% for ER+ve and HER2+ve tumors) as shown in the box 253 plot (Figure 1B). Mean sTILs score is significantly higher in TNBC (35.02 ± 3.93, n=50) 254 compared to ER+ve and HER2+ve tumors (11.02 ± 1.49, n = 55 and 21.64 ± 3.17, n = 255 39). sTILs scores are binned into three categories: Low (<10%), Moderate (10-40%) and 256 High (> 40%) (Figure S1A) according to International TILs Working Group 2014 guidelines 257 for TILs evaluation . Binned scores also reflect significantly skewed distribution between 258 TNBC and other two subtypes. Less than 5 and 10% of ER+ve and HER2+ve samples 259 refelct high TILs scores while close to 40% of TNBC tumors harbor high TILs scores. 260 (Figure S1B). 261 sTILs scores are compared between the subtypes according to their clinical parameters 262 (Table 2). Older age (>50) TNBC tumors reflect significantly higher proportion of sTILs 263 scores compared to ER2+patients; 38.72 ± 5.83, n=25 vs 10.74 ± 1.43, n=38 respectively 264 (Table 2 and Figure 2A). As expected, post-menopausal TNBC patients show significantly 265 higher proportion of sTILs scores as compared to ER2+ve patients; 37.86 ± 5.39,n=29 vs 266 10.08 ± 1.42, n=36 respectively (Table 2 and Figure 2B). No significant difference was seen 267 across mean sTILs between HER2+ve and TNBC patients. Overall distribution of sTILs 268 through low and high grades across subtypes is significantly different with high grade 269 TNBC tumors presenting with higher mean sTILs score; 42.56 ± 5.70 (n=27), followed by 270 high-grade HER2+ve patients; 31.00 ± 5.35 (n=15) and ER+ve patients; 17.50 ± 3.59 (n=6). 271 (Figure 2C). Mean sTILs scores across clinical (cT) and pathological (pT) tumor size, 272 lymph node (cN and pN) status showed higher scores for larger and lymph node negative 273 tumors, specifically in TNBC as compared to non-TNBC subtypes (Figure 3D-G). 274 Similarly, sTILs scores are significantly higher in LVI negative TNBC tumors as compared 275 to ER+ve tumors (33.73 ± 5.27, n=30 vs 11.05 ± 1.79, n=39) as represented in box graph 276 (Figure 3H). 277 sTILs Scores and response to NACT 278 Out of 144 breast cancer patients, 35 patients received NACT. For 33 patients, pre and 279 post-surgery records were available for cTcN and ypTypN data. ypT0ypN0 was taken as 280 pathologically complete response (pCR). Out of 33, 8 patients show pCR post-NACT. 281 Patients with complete response show wider range of sTILs scores compared to the rest 282 who had residual disease (RD) post-NACT (n=25) (Figure 4A). For the patients with medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 283 residual disease, their response to NACT is further segregated into ‘partial response’ 284 when the tumor is down staged by therapy, ‘stable disease’ when no change in the stage 285 occurred post-NACT, and progression in the stage after NACT is taken as ‘progressive 286 disease’ (Table S2). When sTILs scores are compared for each of these categories, 287 inverse pattern is observed with treatment response. Patients with complete pathological 288 response had highest mean sTILs scores of 30 ± 33 followed by partial response (22.90 289 ± 19.96) and stable disease (14.36 ± 15.60), and progressive disease with the least sTILs 290 score of 5% (Figure 4B). sTILs scores for TNBC patients show similar gradual reduction 291 for patients showing complete response (36.67 ± 36.01), followed by partial response 292 (25.80 ± 26.23), and goes lower for patients with stable disease (10.00 ± 8.66) (Figure 293 4F). 295 For the patients who received NACT, sTILs scores and response to NACT are further co- 296 related across subtypes. TNBC patients who show complete pathological response had 297 higher mean sTILs score (36.67%) compared to the rest (20%) (Fig 4E). Irrespective to 298 the response to treatment, ER+ve and HER2+ve patients had lower mean sTILs scores 299 (Figure 4C and 4D). 301 sTILs Scores and Disease Outcome 302 sTILs scores binned into three categories – low (<10%), moderate (10-40%) and high 303 (>40%) are analyzed for association with the disease outcome using Kaplan Meier 304 curves. The cohort shows no specific association of binned TILs scores with disease free 305 survival (Figure 5A). When subtypes are segregated differing outcomes for disease free 306 status with respect to binned sTILs scores is reflected depending on the subtype. High 307 sTILs scores in TNBC tumors are associated with longer relapse free life as compared to 308 low or moderate TILs scores, with hazard ratio of 0.49 by Cox regression (Figure 5D). On 309 the other hand, high sTILs shows significantly poor survival in HER2+ve patients. (Figure 310 5C), while ER+ve patients show similar trend as TNBC patients. For overall survival, the 311 cohort presented with 3 deaths due to disease, and all of which harbored moderate sTILs 312 scores (Figure 6). 316 DISCUSSION 317 This report is the first attempt to understand association of stromal TILs with 318 clinicopathological features of breast cancer, their outcomes and response to therapy for 319 an Indian cohort. The study is limited with a small cohort of 144 breast cancer patients, 320 nevertheless the analysis confirms established association of sTILs with response to 321 therapy and disease-free outcomes specifically in TNBC subtype. Further, this study 322 brings forward significant co-relation of sTILs with clinicopathological features of TNBC 323 subtype, perhaps specific to an Indian cohort. 324 The cohort of 144 breast cancer that contained 50 TNBC, 55 ER+ve and 39 HER2+ve 325 patients reflected uniform distribution of clinicopathological parameters except for age 326 and grade. TNBC presented with younger mean age as compared to non-TNBC and 327 comprised of higher proportion (50%) of young age (<50 years) and pre-menopausal medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 7,9 328 patients, unique to an India Breast Cancer Cohort . This is in contrast to the western 29,30 329 cohorts where young age TNBCs present at 29-34% . TNBC in our cohort also 330 presented with higher proportion of lower grade tumors (45%) as compared to western 331 cohorts (20.2%) . For patients who received NACT (n=33), 42.9% of TNBC patients had 332 complete pathological response to the therapy as opposed to 7% and 20% of ER+ and 333 HER2+ cohort. This is line with the current literature, where TNBCs indeed show better 3,13,14 334 response to therapy . 335 Stromal TILs scores in the cohort were uniformly distributed irrespective of the clinic- 336 pathological parameters of the tumors, except for grade and tumor size. Higher grade 337 and larger tumors showed significantly higher sTILs scores, as has been reported 27,32 338 elsewhere . Subtype wise comparison of sTILs scores co-related well with reported 23 24 339 studies and meta-analysis , where TNBC subtype presented with wider sTILs scores 340 distribution with a greater number of tumors with high sTILs scores (35%) as compared 341 to ER+ and HER2+ subtypes (11% and 22% respectively). Within TNBC, higher sTILs 342 scores co-related with better disease-free outcomes. With the limited number of patients 343 that received NACT, broader and higher sTILs scores associated with complete 344 pathological response. The gradual reduction in response to therapy with gradual 345 decrease in sTILs scores was confined to TNBC subtype, similar to that has been 346 reported in western population .The trends observed in our study are in line with the 347 established association of sTILs distribution and TNBC outcomes, although not 348 significant. Non-significant distribution patterns observed could be due to small cohort 349 size or may be specific to Indian context, something that needs to be explored with larger 350 cohort of breast cancer patients from India. 351 Apart from validating established associations of sTILs with disease outcome and 352 response to therapy, our study uncovers unique associations of sTILs scores with 353 clinicopathological features specifically in TNBC subtype. Significantly higher sTILs 354 scores were observed for old age, post-menopausal TNBC patients as compared to 355 young, pre-menopausal TNBC patients. This is in contrast to earlier reports, where a 356 meta-analysis of nine studies showed significantly lower sTILs scores for older age . 357 While in a cohort of 897 TNBC patients, no significant difference in sTILs scores was 358 noted between old and young age TNBC patients . It is known in the field that young age 359 TNBC patients, although with aggressive disease show better response to therapy and 34,35 360 higher rates of pCR than older age TNBC patients . Whether, higher sTILs scores in 361 older age, post-menopausal TNBC patients of our cohort translates into better response 362 to therapy and better disease outcome for them needs to be further analysed with a larger 363 cohort. Perhaps such association could possibly turn out to be specific to TNBC in an 364 Indian context. 365 Further analysis for sTILs distribution will provide validation to establish TILs as a 366 predictive tool to segregate old age post-menopausal TNBC patients who may benefit 367 from NACT and young age, pre-menopausal TNBC patients with aggressive disease who 368 are most likely to be non-responders to the therapy. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 369 REFERENCES: 370 1. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). GLOBOCAN 2018: Latest 371 global cancer data. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018. 372 2. Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Hicks DG, et al. Recommendations for human 373 epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast. J Clin Oncol. 374 2013;31(31):3997-4013. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984 375 3. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and 376 long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 377 2008;26(8):1275-1281. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4147 378 4. Kassam F, Enright K, Dent R, et al. Survival outcomes for patients with metastatic 379 triple-negative breast cancer: Implications for clinical practice and trial design. Clin 380 Breast Cancer. 2009;9(1):29-33. doi:10.3816/CBC.2009.n.005 381 5. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive Analysis of 382 Estrogen Receptor ( ER ) - and HER2-Negative Invasive Breast Cancer , the so- 383 Called Triple-Negative Phenotype: A Population-Based Study from the California 384 Cancer Registry. 2007;(March). doi:10.1002/cncr.22618 385 6. Lin NU, Vanderplas A, Hughes ME, et al. Clinicopathologic features, patterns of 386 recurrence, and survival among women with triple-negative breast cancer in the 387 National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cancer. 2012;118(22):5463-5472. 388 doi:10.1002/cncr.27581 389 7. Kulkarni A, Kelkar D., Parikh N, Shashidhara LS, Koppiker CB, Kulkarni M. Meta- 390 analysis of prevalence of Triple Negative Breast Cancer and its clinical features at 391 incidence in Indian Breast Cancer Patients. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020;In press. 392 8. Sandhu GS, Erqou S, Patterson H, Mathew A. Prevalence of Triple-Negative 393 Breast Cancer in India: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Glob Oncol. 394 2016;2(6):412-421. doi:10.1200/jgo.2016.005397 395 9. Thakur KK, Bordoloi D, Kunnumakkara AB. Alarming Burden of Triple-Negative 396 Breast Cancer in India. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18(3):e393-e399. 397 doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2017.07.013 398 10. Mehanna J, Haddad FGH, Eid R, Lambertini M, Kourie HR. Triple-negative breast 399 cancer: Current perspective on the evolving therapeutic landscape. Int J Womens 400 Health. 2019;11:431-437. doi:10.2147/IJWH.S178349 401 11. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long- 402 term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 403 2014;384(9938):164-172. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8 404 12. Telli ML, Gradishar WJ, Ward JH. NCCN Guidelines Updates: Breast Cancer. J 405 Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(55):552-555. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2019.5006 406 13. Von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic 407 complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various 408 intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):1796-1804. 409 doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8595 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 410 14. Caparica R, Lambertini M, de Azambuja E. How I treat metastatic triple-negative 411 breast cancer. ESMO Open. 2019;4(Suppl 2):e000504. doi:10.1136/esmoopen- 412 2019-000504 413 15. Sharma P, Lopez-Tarruella S, García-Saenz JA, et al. Pathological Response and 414 Survival in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Carboplatin plus 415 Docetaxel. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(23):5820-5829. doi:10.1158/1078- 416 0432.CCR-18-0585 417 16. Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R, et al. Long-Term Prognostic Risk After 418 Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Associated With Residual Cancer Burden and Breast 419 Cancer Subtype. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1049-1060. 420 doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.63.1010 421 17. Denkert C, Loibl S, Noske A, et al. Tumor-associated lymphocytes as an 422 independent predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. 423 J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):105-113. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.23.7370 424 18. Denkert C, Von Minckwitz G, Brase JC, et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and 425 response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without carboplatin in human 426 epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive and triple-negative primary breast 427 cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(9):983-991. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.58.1967 428 19. Castaneda CA, Mittendorf E, Casavilca S, et al. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in 429 triple negative breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. World J Clin 430 Oncol. 2016;7(5):387-394. doi:10.5306/wjco.v7.i5.387 431 20. Anichini A, Fossau G. Clonal analysis of the cytolytic T-cell response to human 432 tumors. Immunol Today. 1987;8(No. 12):385-389. doi:10.1016/0167- 433 5699(87)90215-5. 434 21. Naukkarinen A, Syrjänen KJ. Quantitative immunohistochemical analysis of 435 mononuclear infiltrates in breast carcinomas–correlation with tumour 436 differentiation. J Pathol. 1990;160:217-222. doi:10.1002/path.1711600307 437 22. Khoury T, Nagrale V, Opyrchal M, Peng X, Yao S. Prognostic Significance of 438 Stromal Versus Intratumoral Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Different Subtypes of 439 Breast Cancer Treated with Cytotoxic Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Appl 440 Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2018;(716):1-20. 441 doi:10.1097/PAI.0000000000000466.Prognostic 442 23. Salgado R, Denkert C, Demaria S, et al. The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating 443 lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an International TILs 444 Working Group 2014. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(2):259-271. 445 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu450 446 24. Denkert C, von Minckwitz G, Darb-Esfahani S, et al. Tumour-infiltrating 447 lymphocytes and prognosis in different subtypes of breast cancer: a pooled 448 analysis of 3771 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Lancet Oncol. 2018. 449 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30904-X 450 25. Loi S, Drubay D, Adams S, Pruneri G, Francis PA. Tumor-In fi ltrating 451 Lymphocytes and Prognosis : A Pooled Individual Patient Analysis of Early-Stage medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 452 Triple-Negative Breast Cancers abstract. Am J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(7):559-570. 453 doi:10.1200/JCO.18.01010 454 26. Miyoshi Y, Shien T, Ogiya A, et al. Associations in tumor infiltrating lymphocytes 455 between clinicopathological factors and clinical outcomes in estrogen receptor- 456 positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 negative breast cancer. 457 Oncol Lett. 2019;17(2):2177-2186. doi:10.3892/ol.2018.9853 458 27. Kurozumi, Sasagu; Matsumoto, Hiroshi; Kurosumi, Masafumi; Inoue , Kenichi; 459 Fujii, Takaaki; Horiguchi, Jun; Shirabe, Ken; Oyama, Tetsunari; Kuwano H. 460 Prognostic significance of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes for oestrogen receptor- 461 negative breast cancer without lymph node metastasis. Oncol Lett. 462 2019;17(3):2647-2656. doi:10.3892/ol.2019.9938 463 28. Sawe RT, Mining SK, Ofulla A V., et al. Tumor infiltrating leukocyte density is 464 independent of tumor grade and molecular subtype in aggressive breast cancer of 465 Western Kenya. Trop Med Health. 2017;45(1):1-11. doi:10.1186/s41182-017- 466 0059-4 467 29. Tano S V., Kavanaugh MM, Peddi P, Mansour RP, Shi R, Burton G Von. Triple 468 negative breast cancer (TNBC): Analysis of age and stage distribution and 469 survival between African American and Caucasian women in a predominant low- 470 income population. J Clin Oncol. 2017. doi:10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.e12586 471 30. Howlader N, Cronin KA, Kurian AW, Andridge R. Differences in breast cancer 472 survival by molecular subtypes in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol 473 Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27(6):619-626. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0627 474 31. Plasilova ML, Hayse B, Killelea BK, Horowitz NR, Chagpar AB, Lannin DR. 475 Features of triple-negative breast cancer Analysis of 38,813 cases from the 476 national cancer database. Med (United States). 2016;95(35). 477 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000004614 478 32. Loi S, Drubay D, Adams S, et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and prognosis: A 479 pooled individual patient analysis of early-stage triple-negative breast cancers. J 480 Clin Oncol. 2019. doi:10.1200/JCO.18.01010 481 33. Pruneri G, Vingiani A, Bagnardi V, et al. Clinical validity of tumor-infiltrating 482 lymphocytes analysis in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 483 2016;27(2):249-256. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv571 484 34. Loibl S, Jackisch C, Lederer B, et al. Outcome after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 485 young breast cancer patients : a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 486 eight prospectively randomized controlled trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 487 2015;152(2):377-387. doi:10.1007/s10549-015-3479-z 488 35. Waldenfels G Von, Loibl S, Furlanetto J, et al. Outcome after neoadjuvant 489 chemotherapy in elderly breast cancer patients – a pooled analysis of individual 490 patient data from eight prospectively randomized controlled trials. Oncotarget. 491 2018;9(20):15168-15179. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.24586 492 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 493 Figure Legends 495 Figure 1: Flow chart to explain selection of primary breast cancer tissue. 496 Primary tumor tissue selection from retrospectively (2010-March 2019) collected PCCM 497 biobank. Out of 653 patients breast tissues deposited with patient consent at PCCM 498 biobank, 233 were of primary tumor (172 biopsy tissue and 61 naïve surgery tissue). Out 499 of these, molecular subtypes were assigned for 185 for whom IHC reports were available. 500 Out of 185, 144 tissue samples with good tissue integrity were sectioned, stained with 501 H&E and then scored for stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes following International 502 TILs working group guidelines. 504 Table 1: Demographic and clinical features of breast cancer patient cohort. 505 Number of patients with breast cancer were grouped into , ER+/PR+/PR-/HER2- , HER2+ 506 and TNBC. The number of patients are listed according to the clinical variables reported 507 at the time of diagnosis as per both the subtypes. Clinical parameters such as age at 508 diagnosis, menopausal status, tumour grade and radiological tumor size, lymph node 509 positivity and LVI are listed. For patients who did not receive NACT/NAHT, pT and pN 510 retrieved from the surgery pathology report are noted. For patients who received 511 NACT/NAHT, pathological response to the therapy is noted based on their ypTN status. 512 Total number of patients with follow-up and time to follow-up and follow-up status are also 513 noted. Any skewed distribution of clinical parameters in the cohort was tested using the 514 2*3 (4*3 in case of tumor size) χ2 contingency test with GraphPad Prism v.5. Red font 515 indicates significant p-values 516 *For comparing mean age differences among the subtypes, 1-way ANOVA was used. 517 LVI- lympho-vascular invasion, Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), pCR- pathological 518 complete response. 519 Figure 2: sTILs distribution across all three subtypes tumor tissue. 520 A. Images depicting stromal TILs distribution. Representative images of sTILs scores for 521 ER+(left panel), HER2+(middle panel) & TNBC (right panel). Percent sTILs score for each 522 of the tissue is mentioned on the figure. Blue lines are the scale bars representing 200um. 523 B. Box plot shows distribution of sTILs scores across ER+, HER2+ and TNBC tumor 524 tissue. The horizontal line represents median. Error bars represent Tukey’s whiskers. The 525 actual number of patient samples (n) are shown in the box plot. The distribution of the 526 sTILs scores between tissue samples across each subtype was tested for statistical 527 significance with Student’s t-test, using GraphPad Prism v.5. * represents p-value <0.05, 528 ** represents p-value <0.01, and *** represents p-value <0.0001. 529 Table 2: Mean sTILs scores with respect to clinicopathological features of breast 530 cancer subtypes. 531 Mean ± S.E sTILs scores across clinicopathological parameters including age at 532 diagnosis, menopausal status of patients, tumor grade, radiological and pathological 533 tumor size and lymph node status and LVI according to the molecular subtypes are 534 presented. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 535 The statistical analysis was done in GraphPad Prism v.5. One-way ANOVA was 536 performed to compute significant difference in mean sTILs scores between breast 537 cancer subtypes and for comparing mean sTILs scores across each category and 538 subtypes. 539 Red font indicates significant p-values. 540 *LVI- lympho-vascular invasion 541 Figure 3. sTILs distribution across clinico-pathological parameters with respect to 542 subtypes. 543 Box plots depicting mean sTILs scores for ER+, HER2+ and TNBC tumor tissue across 544 A. early & late age, B. pre & post-menopausal status, C. low (I/II)and high (III) grade 545 tumors, D. clinical tumor size; T1 and T2, E. clinical lymph-node status – positive and 546 negative, F. pathological tumor size; T1 and T2, G. pathological lymph-node status – 547 positive and negative, H. LVI status - positive & negative. The number of tissue samples 548 (n) are shown on top of each bar. Error bars represent Tukey’s whiskers. 549 Unpaired t-test was performed to test for significance across each parameter between 550 individual subtypes. Only grade shows significant differences across all three subtypes, 551 which is represented here. p-value <0.05 is represented with ‘*’, <0.01 with ‘**’ and, 552 <0.0001 with ‘***’. ns= non-significant. GraphPad Prism v.5 was used for the graphs and 553 ANOVA test. 554 Figure 4: Mean sTILs scores and its association with response to NACT. 555 A. sTILs score distribution is plotted for patients who showed complete pathological 556 response (pCR) or had residual disease (RD) post-NACT. Box plots with horizontal lines 557 show median sTILs score and The horizontal line represents, and error bars represent 558 Tukey’s whiskers. Mean sTILs across both groups are not significantly different as tested 559 by two-tailed unpaired t-test. B. Box plot representing mean sTILS score for all the 560 patients that received NACT and showed either complete orpartial pathological response 561 or had a stable or progressive disease at the time of surgery. Error bars represent Tukey’s 562 whiskers. C. Mean sTILs scores for ER+ patients who had pCR or residual disease (RD). 563 No statistics could be computed. Error bars represent Tukey’s whiskers. D. Mean sTILs 564 scores for HER+ patients who had pCR or residual disease (RD). No statistics could be 565 computed. Error bars represent Tukey’s whiskers. E. Mean sTILs scores for TNBC 566 patients who had pCR or residual disease (RD). Unpaired t-test was run for sTILs score 567 across pCR and RD. Error bars represent Tukey’s whiskers. F. Box plot representing 568 mean sTILS score only for TNBC patients that received NACT and showed either 569 complete or partial pathological response or had a stable or progressive disease at the 570 time of surgery. Error bars represent Tukey’s whiskers. 571 *pCR-pathological complete response, RD-Residual disease 572 Figure 5: Three year disease-free survival with respect to binned sTILs scores. 573 Disease free survival was calculated as number of months from the date of surgery till the 574 recurrence diagnosis date or last follow-up date. The cut-off for DFS calculation was taken medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 575 at 3- years and calculated for a total of 131 patients. Kaplan-Meier survival plots for 576 disease-free survival (DFS) according to low, moderate & high sTILs score bins for A. the 577 entire cohort, B. ER+ patients and C. HER2+ patients and D. TNBC patients. In the graph, 578 X-axis represents time scale in months, Y-axis represents the survival probability. Blue- 579 lines indicate patients with low sTILs score, red-line indicates patients with moderate 580 score & green indicates high sTILs scores. Each drop shown as vertical line represents 581 an event i.e. local or distant recurrence. Survival probability with respect to sTILs binned 582 scores is tested using IBM SPSS Statistics v. 21.0.0.0. 583 Figure 6: Three year overall survival with respect to binned sTILs scores. 584 Overall survival was calculated as number of months from the date of biopsy till the last 585 follow-up date. The cut-off for OS calculation was taken at 3- years and calculated for a 586 total of 137 patients. Kaplan-meier survival plots showing overall survival (OS) of patients 587 according to low, moderate & high sTILs score bins for A. the entire cohort and B. ER+ 588 patients and C.TNBC patients. In the graph, X-axis represents time scale in months, Y- 589 axis represents the survival probability. Blue-line indicates patients with low sTILs score, 590 red-line indicates patients with moderate score & green indicates high sTILs scores. Each 591 drop shown as vertical line represents an event i.e. death due to disease. Survival 592 probability for each factor is tested by using IBM SPSS Statistics v. 21.0.0.0. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 593 Supplementary Legends: 595 Table S1: Mean sTILs scores with respect to clinical features of the cohort. 596 Mean ± S.E of sTILs scores across clinicopathological parameters including age at 597 diagnosis, menopausal status of patients, tumor grade, radiological tumor size and lymph 598 node status and LVI. For comparing mean TILs score differences across each parameter 599 two-tailed, unpaired t-test was performed on GraphPad Prism v.5. 600 #Red font indicates significant p-values. 601 * LVI- lympho-vascular invasion 603 Figure S1: Binned sTILs distribution across all breast cancer subtypes tumor 604 tissue. 605 A. Representative images depicting stromal TILs distribution in tumor. Images of binned 606 TILs scores are presented here for non-TNBC (left panel) & TNBC (right panel). 607 Representative images of Low (<10%), Moderate (10%-39%) and High (>40%) sTILs 608 scores as imaged on OptraScan at 10X magnification and processed using ImageViewer 609 2.0.4. Blue lines are the scale bars representing 200um. 610 B. Bar graph demonstrating percent frequency across binned categories of sTILs scores 611 in ER+, HER2+ and TNBC subtypes. The number of patients in each bin (n) are shown 612 on top of the bars. Association of categorical sTILs variable (Low, Moderate and High) 613 across breast cancer subtypes was tested for significance by 3*3 χ2 test using GraphPad 614 Prism v.5. 616 Table S2: Response to NACT across breast cancer subtypes. 617 Number of patients treated with NACT and their response to NACT is recorded as 618 complete, partial, no response as in stable disease or progressive disease. Number of 619 patients in each response category for ER+, HER2+ and TNBC are given in the table. 620 The distribution across subtypes for pCR status was tested using χ2 test and was found 621 to be non-significant. 622 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure 1: Flow chart to explain selection of primary breast cancer tissue Number of IDC patients 2010-March 2019 (n=653) Primary tissue With IHC reports available (n=233) (n=185) Biopsy tissue (n=172) ER (n=85) HER2 (n=45) Naïve surgery tissue TNBC (n =55) (n=61) Included in analysis (n=144) ER+ (n=55) HER2+ (n=39) TNBC (n=50) 623 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Table 1: Demographic and clinical features of breast cancer patient cohort medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Table S1: Mean sTILs scores with respect to clinical parameters of the cohort medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure 2: sTILs distribution across all three subtypes tumor tissue. A. TNBC HER+ ER+ a. d. g. <10% sTILs <5% sTILs 20% sTILs b. e. h. i. 20% sTILs 50% sTILs 30% sTILs c. f. i. 60% sTILs 70% sTILs 80% sTILs B. TILs score distribution across subtypes *** 80 ** n=50 n=39 n=55 ER+ HER2+ TNBC Subtypes Mean sTILs medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure S1: Binned sTILs distribution across all breast cancer subtypes tumor tissue. A. Non-TNBC TNBC B. ER+ HER2+ TNBC p-value=0.0001 n=25 by c2 test n=33 n=24 n=20 n=16 n=9 n=10 n=5 n=2 Low Moderate High TILs binned score High sTILs Moderate sTILs Low sTILs Percent number of patients medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure 3: sTILs mean scores compared across molecular subtypes Menopausal status Age A. B. n=29 n=18 n=25 n=29 n=25 n=25 n=38 n=8 n=14 n=9 n=36 n=17 TNBC ER+ HER+ ER+ HER+ TNBC pre-menopausal post-menopausal Early age(<50) Late age(³50) Tumor size C. Grade D. 80 ** n=27 n=15 n=22 n=37 n=7 n=7 n=28 n=6 n=24 n=21 n=46 n=28 TNBC TNBC ER+ HER+ ER+ HER+ T1 T2 Low Grade(I/II) High Grade(III) Tumor size(pT) Lymph node(cN) E. F. n=26 n=20 n=24 n=5 n=8 n=18 n=26 20 n=4 n=22 n=14 n=25 n=22 ER+ HER+ TNBC ER+ HER+ TNBC T1 T2 positive negative LVI Lymph node(pN) G. H. 100 100 60 60 n=23 n=12 n=30 n=10 n=19 n=26 n=12 n=11 n=23 n=39 n=8 n=12 ER+ HER+ TNBC TNBC ER+ HER+ positive negative positive negative sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Table S2: Response to NACT across breast cancer subtypes medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure 4: Mean sTILs scores and its association with response to NACT A. B. All breast cancer All breast cancer ns 40 40 n = 8 n=8 n=10 20 20 n = 25 n=14 n=1 pCR RD Complete Partial Stable Progressive C. D. ER+ HER2+ n = 4 n = 13 40 n = 1 n = 1 pCR RD pCR RD E. F. TNBC TNBC ns 60 60 40 40 n = 6 n=6 n=5 n=3 20 n = 8 20 n=0 0 0 Complete Partial Stable Progressive pCR RD sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score sTILs score medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure 5: Disease-free survival according to sTILs scores. DFS for ER+ patients DFS for All breast cancer patients B. A. C. DFS for HER+ patients D. DFS for TNBC patients medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177865.this version posted August 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Figure 6: Overall survival according to sTILs scores. OS for ER+ patients OS for All breast cancer patients B. A. OS for TNBC patients C.

Journal

medRxivmedRxiv

Published: Aug 22, 2020

There are no references for this article.