MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P4-06-03: Unravelling triple-negative breast cancer tumor microenvironment heterogeneity using an integrative multiomic analysis

2019· article· en· W2912997017 on OpenAlexaff
Yacine Barèche, Laurence Buisseret, Tina Gruosso, Elodie Girard, David Venet, Floriane Dupont, Christine Desmedt, M Park, Françoise Rothé, John Stagg, Christos Sotiriou

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriple-negative breast cancerImmune systemTumor microenvironmentBreast cancerBiologyCancer researchImmune checkpointStromal cellComputational biologyCancerOncologyMedicineImmunotherapyImmunologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) constitute 10-20% of all breast cancers and is associated with a worse prognosis and limited treatment options. Recent trials evaluating immune checkpoint blockade in TNBC demonstrated encouraging results for a subset of patients. TNBC is highly heterogeneous and its tumour microenvironment (TME) has been recognized as a critical determinant of its behavior and clinical outcome. Genome-wide gene expression profiling analyses have already improved our understanding of the complexity of this disease and have defined 6 different molecular subtypes namely Basal-like 1 (BL1), basal-like 2 (BL2), immunomodulatory (IM), mesenchymal (M), mesenchymal stem-like (MSL) and luminal androgen receptor (LAR), exhibiting distinct biological and clinical characteristic. In this study, we aim to dissect the molecular diversity of the TME and more specifically to assess the immune landscape according to TNBC molecular subtypes. Methods: A cohort of 485 TNBC patient with publicly available data (RNA-Seq and Illumina HT-12 v3) from the METABRIC and the TCGA consortia were used in the gene expression analysis. Gene signatures reflecting different features or cellular components (immune, stromal, angiogenesis, lymphangiogenesis, hypoxia, metabolism) of the TME were used to evaluate multiple biological processes known to contribute to tumorogenesis. A compendium of 17 immune specific gene signatures and T cell localisation classification were used to evaluate the immune composition and spatial pattern of immune infiltrates. All parameters were compared using a logistic regression model to evaluate their relative contribution according to each molecular subtype. Results: Our analyses demonstrated that each molecular subtype exhibits different TME profiles, as well as specific immune composition and localisation. IM tumors were associated with the highest expression of immune-related gene signatures, enriched with adaptive immune cells and with a fully inflamed spatial pattern. MSL tumors were mostly associated with the expression of Lymphangiogenesis and Stromal TME signatures. They also exhibited some immune activity through the expression of immune gene signatures capturing innate immune and adaptive immunosuppressive cells. This subtype was mainly associated with margin restricted and to some extent with fully inflamed spatial pattern. BL1 tumors were associated with the expression of Metabolism TME signatures, along with fully inflamed and stroma restricted spatial pattern. To a lesser extent, this subtype was also associated with activated DC and CD4 Tem cells. LAR and M tumors exhibited an immune cold phenotype. They were associated with Stromal and Metabolism TME signatures, enriched in margin restricted spatial pattern and negatively associated with every immune cells. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate for the first time the huge heterogeneity that characterizes the TME of TNBCs. Identification of specific TME profiles could help to design more rationale and appropriate synergistic therapeutic combinations targeting TME elements in this high-risk disease. Citation Format: Bareche Y, Buisseret L, Gruosso T, Girard E, Venet D, Dupont F, Desmedt C, Park M, Rothé F, Stagg J, Sotiriou C. Unravelling triple-negative breast cancer tumor microenvironment heterogeneity using an integrative multiomic analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-06-03.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers→French-language works237,207→