Tumoral Lymphocytic Infiltration and Expression of the Chemokine CXCL10 in Breast Cancers from the Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Breast carcinomas, including basal and hereditary cases, often present with a prominent tumoral lymphocytic infiltrate. Chemokines could play a role in attracting these cells and contribute to tumor progression. We explored tumoral expression of CXCL10 and determined the relationship between CXCL10 and lymphocytic infiltrate in a cohort of breast cancers. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Using tissue microarrays of 364 breast tumors, we evaluated expression of CXCL10 and its receptor, CXCR3, in relation to histopathologic features, biomarkers, and lymphocyte markers. In addition, we overexpressed CXCL10 and CXCR3 in MCF7 breast cancer cells and monitored T-lymphocyte migration and invasion. RESULTS: Forty-five percent of tumors expressed CXCL10, and a significant association was found with CXCR3 and lymphocytic infiltrate. Further characterization of the lymphocytic infiltrate revealed an association with CXCL10 expression for peritumoral CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocytes. CD8+ intratumoral lymphocytes, FOXP3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs), and T-BET+ T(H)1 cells were associated with BRCA1 and basal tumors. Conditioned media from MCF7 cells overexpressing both CXCL10 and CXCR3 increased T-lymphocyte migration and invasion. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that CXCL10 may act in a paracrine manner, affecting the tumor microenvironment, and in an autocrine manner, acting on the tumor cells themselves and may play a role in tumor invasiveness and progression. The CXCL10-CXCR3 axis can serve as a potential target in BRCA1 and basal breast cancers, which present with a prominent lymphocytic infiltrate and a poor prognosis. Clin Cancer Res; 19(2); 336-46. ©2012 AACR.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".