<i>In situ</i> immune response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer predicts survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accumulating preclinical evidence suggests that anticancer immune responses contribute to the success of chemotherapy. However, the predictive value of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer remains unknown. We hypothesized that the nature of the immune infiltrate following neoadjuvant chemotherapy would predict patient survival. In a series of 111 consecutive HER2- and a series of 51 non-HER2-overexpressing breast cancer patients treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy, we studied by immunohistochemistry tumour infiltration by FOXP3 and CD8 T lymphocytes before and after chemotherapy. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox modelling were used to assess relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). A predictive scoring system using American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) pathological staging and immunological markers was created. Association of high CD8 and low FOXP3 cell infiltrates after chemotherapy was significantly associated with improved RFS (p = 0.02) and OS (p = 0.002), and outperformed classical predictive factors in multivariate analysis. A combined score associating CD8/FOXP3 ratio and pathological AJCC staging isolated a subgroup of patients with a long-term overall survival of 100%. Importantly, this score also identified patients with a favourable prognosis in an independent cohort of HER2-negative breast cancer patients. These results suggest that immunological CD8 and FOXP3 cell infiltrate after treatment is an independent predictive factor of survival in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and provides new insights into the role of the immune milieu and cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".