Search

Immunohistochemical evaluation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 status stratify the different subtypes of breast cancer and define the treatment course. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), which does not register receptor overexpression, is often associated with worse patient prognosis. Mass spectrometry imaging transcribes the molecular content of tissue specimens without requiring additional tags or preliminary analysis of the samples, being therefore an excellent methodology for an unbiased determination of tissue constituents, in particular tumor markers. In this study, the proteomic content of 1191 human breast cancer samples was characterized by mass spectrometry imaging and the epithelial regions were employed to train and test machine-learning models to characterize the individual receptor status and to classify TNBC. The classification models presented yielded high accuracies for estrogen and progesterone receptors and over 95% accuracy for classification of TNBC. Analysis of the molecular features revealed that vimentin overexpression is associated with TNBC, supported by immunohistochemistry validation, revealing a new potential target for diagnosis and treatment.

Purpose: We evaluated mRNA signatures to predict response to neoadjuvant PD-L1 inhibition in combination with chemotherapy in early triple-negative breast cancer., Experimental Design: Targeted mRNA sequencing of 2,559 transcripts was performed in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples from 162 patients of the GeparNuevo trial. We focused on validation of four predefined gene signatures and differential gene expression analyses for new predictive markers., Results: Two signatures [GeparSixto signature (G6-Sig) and IFN signature (IFN-Sig)] were predictive for treatment response in a multivariate model including treatment arm [G6-Sig: OR, 1.558; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.130-2.182; P = 0.008 and IFN-Sig: OR, 1.695; 95% CI, 1.234-2.376; P = 0.002), while the CYT metric predicted pathologic complete response (pCR) in the durvalumab arm, and the proliferation-associated gene signature in the placebo arm. Expression of PD-L1 mRNA was associated with better response in both arms, indicating that increased levels of PD-L1 are a general predictor of neoadjuvant therapy response. In an exploratory analysis, we identified seven genes that were higher expressed in responders in the durvalumab arm, but not the placebo arm: HLA-A, HLA-B, TAP1, GBP1, CXCL10, STAT1 , and CD38 . These genes were associated with cellular antigen processing and presentation and IFN signaling., Conclusions: Immune-associated signatures are associated with pCR after chemotherapy, but might be of limited use for the prediction of response to additional immune checkpoint blockade. Gene expressions related to antigen presentation and IFN signaling might be interesting candidates for further evaluation., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Aim: To evaluate HER2-negative breast cancer (BC) with a low hormone receptor (HR) expression, with regard to pathological complete response (pCR) and survival, in comparison to triple-negative BC (TNBC) and strong HR-positive BC., Methods: We compared negative [oestrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) <1%], low-positive (ER and/or PR 1-9%) and strong-positive (ER or PR 10-100%) HR-expression in neoadjuvant clinical trial cohorts (n = 2765) of BC patients. End-points were disease-free survival (DFS), distant-disease free survival (DDFS) and overall survival (OS). We performed RNA sequencing on available tumour tissue samples from patients with low-HR expression (n = 38)., Results: Ninety-four (3.4%) patients had low HR-positive tumours, 1769 (64.0%) had strong HR-positive tumours, and 902 (32.6%) had TNBC. There were no significant differences in pCR rates between women with low HR-positive tumours (27.7%) and women with TNBC (35.5%). DFS and DDFS were also not different [for DFS, hazard ratio 1.26, 95%-CI (confidence interval) : 0.87-1.83, log-rank test p = 0.951; for DDFS, hazard ratio 1.17, 95%-CI: 0.78-1.76, log-rank test p = 0.774]. Patients with strong HR-positive tumours had a significantly lower pCR rate (pCR 9.4%; odds ratio 0.38, 95%-CI: 0.23-0.63), but better DFS (hazard ratio 0.48, 95%-CI: 0.33-0.70) and DDFS (hazard ratio 0.49, 95%-CI: 0.33-0.74) than patients with low HR-positive tumours. Molecular subtyping (RNA sequencing) of low HR-positive tumours classified these predominantly into a basal subtype (86.8%)., Conclusion: Low HR-positive, HER2-negative tumours have a similar clinical behaviour to TNBC showing high pCR rates and poor survival and also a basal-like gene expression signature. Patients with low HR-positive tumours should be regarded as candidates for therapy strategies targeting TNBC., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AS reports grants from Celgene, grants from Roche, grants from AbbVie, grants from Molecular Partner, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pfizer, other from Roche, outside the submitted work. CD reports grant support from the European Commission (Responsify and Oncobiome project) as well as from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe, TransLuminal-B and Integrate-TN project) during the conduct of the study; ownership interest in Sividon Diagnostics outside the submitted work; and honoraria from Pfizer, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Myriad, Teva, Celgene, Roche, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. CH reports personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. CJ reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Celegen, personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. FM reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from PharmaMar, personal fees from GenomicHealth, personal fees from CureVac, personal fees from EISAI, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Celgene, outside the submitted work. HT reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. JH reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants and personal fees from Celgene, outside the submitted work. KEW reports personal fees and other from Myriad, outside the submitted work. MK reports grants from Deutsche Krebshilfe (German Cancer Aid), grants from DFG/BMBF, grants from Senator Roesner Foundation, grants from Dr. Pommer-Jung Foundation, personal fees from Springer Press, personal fees from Biermann Press, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Myriad Genetics, personal fees from TEVA, personal fees from Bavarian KVB, personal fees from DKMS Life, personal fees from BLÄK, other from Therawis Diagnostics GmbH, other from Busenfreundin GmbH, outside the submitted work. MU reports personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen GmbH, personal fees and non-financial support from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from Celgene GmbH, personal fees and non-financial support from Daiji Sankyo, personal fees and non-financial support from Eisai GmbH, personal fees from Lilly Deutschland, personal fees and non-financial support from Lilly Int., personal fees and non-financial support from MSD Merck, personal fees and non-financial support from Mundipharma, personal fees and non-financial support from Myriad Genetics, personal fees and non-financial support from Odonate, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer GmbH, personal fees from PUMA Biotechnology, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche Pharma AG, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH, personal fees and non-financial support from TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. MVM reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Genomic Health, non-financial support from Novartis, non-financial support from Lilly, outside the submitted work. NP reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. PAF reports grants from Novartis, grants from BioNTech, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, personal fees from TEVA, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees from Myelo Therapeutics, personal fees from Macrogenics, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Puma, grants from Cepheid, personal fees from Lilly, during the conduct of the study. SL reports grants and other from Abbvie, grants and other from Amgen, grants and other from AstraZeneca, grants and other from Celgene, grants and other from Novartis, grants and other from Pfizer, grants and other from Roche, other from Seattle Genetics, other from Prime/Medscape, personal fees from Chugai, grants from Teva, grants from Vifor, grants and other from Daiichi-Sankyo, other from Lilly, other from Samsung, other from Eirgenix, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. Loibl has a patent EP14153692.0 pending. WDS reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. WW reports personal fees from Roche, MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Boehringer, Novartis, Takeda, Amgen, Astellas and grants from Roche, MSD, BMS, Bruker outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy and toxicity of olaparib as combination therapy in early breast cancer (BC) patients with homologous recombinant deficiency (HRD) [score high and/or germline (g) or tumour (t) BRCA1/2 mutation] is not well described. GeparOLA (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02789332) investigated olaparib in combination with paclitaxel in HER2-negative early BC with HRD., Patients and Methods: Patients with untreated primary HER2-negative cT2-cT4a-d or cT1c with either cN+ or pNSLN+ or cT1c and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or cT1c and Ki-67>20% BC with HRD were randomised either to paclitaxel (P) 80 mg/m 2 weekly plus olaparib (O) 100 mg twice daily for 12 weeks or P plus carboplatinum (Cb) area under the curve 2 weekly for 12 weeks, both followed by epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (EC). Stratification factors were hormone receptor (HR) status (HR+ versus HR-) and age (<40 versus ≥40 years). The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR; ypT0/is ypN0). A two-sided one-group χ 2 -test was planned to exclude a pCR rate of ≤55% in the PO-EC arm. Secondary end points were other pCR definitions, breast conservation rate, clinical/imaging response, tolerability and safety., Results: A total of 107 patients were randomised between September 2016 and July 2018; 106 (PO N = 69; PCb N = 37) started treatment. Median age was 47.0 years (range 25.0-71.0); 36.2% had cT1, 61.0% cT2, 2.9% cT3, and 31.8% cN-positive tumours; grade 3 tumours: 86.8%; Ki-67>20%: 89.6%; TNBC: 72.6%; confirmed gBRCA1/2 mutation: 56.2%. The pCR rate with PO was 55.1% [90% confidence interval (CI) 44.5% to 65.3%] versus PCb 48.6% (90% CI 34.3% to 63.2%). Analysis for the stratified subgroups showed higher pCR rates with PO in the cohorts of patients <40 years and HR+ patients., Conclusion: GeparOLA could not exclude a pCR rate of ≤55% in the PO arm. PO was significantly better tolerated and the combination merits further evaluation., Competing Interests: Disclosure PAF reports grants from Novartis, BioNtech, personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, MacroGenics, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, grants from Cepheid, personal fees from Lilly, during the conduct of the study. TL reports non-financial support from Pharma Mar, Daiichi Sankyo, Celgene; personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Clovis; personal fees from Amgen, Novartis, Teva, Tesaro. AS reports grants from Celgene, Roche, AbbVie, Molecular Partners, expert testimony from Roche and AstraZeneca; travel expenses from Celgene, Roche and Pfizer, honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, MSD, Tesaro and Lilly, outside the submitted work. CJ reports personal fees from AstraZeneca and Roche during the conduct of the study. JH reports personal fees and travel expenses from Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca; personal fees from Lilly, Celgene, MSD, AbbVie, Eisai; grants from Hexal, Celgene; grants and personal fees from Novartis, travel expenses from Daiichi Sankyo, outside the submitted work. WDS reports grants from German Breast Group, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. SaS reports other from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; personal fees and advisory boards from Amgen, Hexal, Roche, Mundipharma; travel expenses from Novartis, outside the submitted work. CD reports personal fees from Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, grants from Myriad Genetics, other from Sividon Diagnostics/Myriad outside the submitted work and has a patent EP18209672 pending, a patent EP20150702464 pending, and a patent software (VMscope digital pathology) pending. CH reports personal fees from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis outside the submitted work. KR reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Pfizer outside the submitted work. RS reports grants from Cologne Furtune during the conduct of the study. J-UB reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SonoScape, outside the submitted work. MU reports personal fees and non-financial support to the institute from AbbVie, Amgen GmbH, AstraZeneca, Celgene GmbH, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai GmbH, MSD, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer GmbH, Roche, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH; Teva Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd, Novartis, Clovis Oncology; personal fees and others from BMS, Lilly; personal fees from Puma Biotechnology, Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. SL reports grants and honoraria from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; grants and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, other from Seattle Genetics, PriME/ Medscape; personal fees and lecture honoraria from Chugai, grants from Teva, Vifor, Immunomedics grants and honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, honoraria from Lilly, Samsung, Eirgenix, BMS, Puma, MSD, outside the submitted work and has a patent EP14153692.0 pending. All other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The predictive value of tumor mutational burden (TMB), alone or in combination with an immune gene expression profile (GEP), for response to neoadjuvant therapy in early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is currently not known, either for immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) or conventional chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: We obtained both whole exome sequencing and RNA-Seq data from pretreatment samples of 149 TNBC of the recent neoadjuvant ICB trial, GeparNuevo. In a predefined analysis, we assessed the predictive value of TMB and a previously developed immune GEP for pathological complete remission (pCR)., Results: Median TMB was 1.52 mut/Mb (range 0.02-7.65) and was significantly higher in patients with pCR (median 1.87 versus 1.39; P = 0.005). In multivariate analysis, odds ratios for pCR per mut/Mb were 2.06 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.33-3.20, P = 0.001] among all patients, 1.77 (95% CI 1.00-3.13, P = 0.049) in the durvalumab treatment arm, and 2.82 (95% CI 1.21-6.54, P = 0.016) in the placebo treatment arm, respectively. We also found that both continuous TMB and immune GEP (or tumor infiltrating lymphocytes) independently predicted pCR. When we stratified patients in groups based on the upper tertile of TMB and median GEP, we observed a pCR rate of 82% (95% CI 60% to 95%) in the group with both high TMB and GEP in contrast to only 28% (95% CI 16% to 43%) in the group with both low TMB and GEP., Conclusions: TMB and immune GEP add independent value for pCR prediction. Our results recommend further analysis of TMB in combination with immune parameters to individually tailor therapies in breast cancer., Competing Interests: Disclosure This work was supported by grants and non-financial support from Astra Zeneca and other from Celgene during the conduct of the study, grants from Teva and Vifor, grants and other from AbbVie; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche; and Daiichi-Sankyo, other from Seattle Genetics; PriME/Medscape; Lilly; Samsung; and Eirgenix, and personal fees from Chugai outside the submitted work to SL. In addition, SL has a patent EP18209672 pending. CD reports personal fees from Teva; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche; Amgen; MSD; Celgene; and AstraZeneca; outside the submitted work, CD has patents EP20150702464 issued and EP18209672 pending and is a co-founder of Sividon Diagnostics. KEW had shares from Sividon Diagnostics, received employee inventor remuneration from a patent on the EndoPredict test, and has a patent EP18209672 pending. TK has a patent EP18209672 pending. CH reports personal fees from Roche; Novartis; Lilly; Amgen; AstraZeneca; and Pfizer outside the submitted work. BWH reports being an employee of and owning stock in AstraZeneca. JH reports grants from Celgene; Novartis; Hexal; and personal fees from Lilly; Novartis; Roche; Pfizer; AstraZeneca; MSD; Celgene; Eisai; AbbVie; Hexal; and Daichi outside the submitted work. JB reports personal fees from Amgen; AstraZeneca; Genomic Health; MSD; Myriad; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche; and SonoScape outside the submitted work. FM reports personal fees from Roche; AstraZeneca; Pfizer; Tesaro; Novartis; Amgen; PharmaMar; Genomic Health; CureVac; Eisai; Clovis; and Celgene outside the submitted work. WDS reports personal fees from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. SW reports that he is an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca. MvM reports personal fees from Amgen; AstraZeneca; Genomic Health; Novartis; and Lilly outside the submitted work. VM reports grants, personal fees, and other from Roche, personal fees and other from Novartis; Pfizer; and Nektar, and personal fees from Amgen; Astra Zeneca; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; Teva; Tesaro; Hexal; and Novartis outside the submitted work. PAF reports grants from Novartis and BioNtech and personal fees from Novartis; Roche; Pfizer; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Teva; AstraZeneca; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Myelo Therapeutics; MacroGenics; Eisai; Puma; Cepheid; and Lilly during the conduct of the study. CJ reports personal fees from Roche and Celgene outside the submitted work. MU reports personal fees and non-financial support from Odonate and Puma Biotechnology and personal fees and non-financial support to his institution from Lilly; MSD; Mundipharma; Myriad; Pfizer; Roche; Sanovi; Teva; Novartis; Pierre Fabre; and Clovis outside the submitted work. AS reports grants from Celgene; Roche; AbbVie; and Molecular Partner and personal fees from Roche; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Pfizer; Novartis; MSD; Tesaro; and Lilly outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Combining immune-checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy yielded an increased response rates in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Therefore, we evaluated the addition of durvalumab to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in primary TNBC., Patients and Methods: GeparNuevo is a randomised phase II double-blind placebo-controlled study randomising patients with TNBC to durvalumab or placebo given every 4 weeks in addition to nab-paclitaxel followed by standard EC. In the window-phase durvalumab/placebo alone was given 2 weeks before start of nab-paclitaxel. Randomisation was stratified by stromal tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte (sTILs). Patients with primary cT1b-cT4a-d disease, centrally confirmed TNBC and sTILs were included. Primary objective was pathological complete response (pCR) (ypT0 ypN0)., Results: A total of 174 patients were randomised, 117 participated in the window-phase. Median age was 49.5 years (range 23-76); 47 patients (27%) were younger than 40 years; 113 (65%) had stage ≥IIA disease, 25 (14%) high sTILs, 138 of 158 (87%) were PD-L1-positive. pCR rate with durvalumab was 53.4% (95% CI 42.5% to 61.4%) versus placebo 44.2% (95% CI 33.5% to 55.3%; unadjusted continuity corrected χ2P = 0.287), corresponding to OR = 1.45 (95% CI 0.80-2.63, unadjusted Wald P = 0.224). Durvalumab effect was seen only in the window cohort (pCR 61.0% versus 41.4%, OR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.06-4.64, P = 0.035; interaction P = 0.048). In both arms, significantly increased pCR (P < 0.01) were observed with higher sTILs. There was a trend for increased pCR rates in PD-L1-positive tumours, which was significant for PD-L1-tumour cell in durvalumab (P = 0.045) and for PD-L1-immune cell in placebo arm (P = 0.040). The most common immune-related adverse events were thyroid dysfunction any grade in 47%., Conclusions: Our results suggest that the addition of durvalumab to anthracycline-/taxane-based NACT increases pCR rate particularly in patients treated with durvalumab alone before start of chemotherapy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02685059., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Immune cell infiltration in breast cancer is important for the patient's prognosis and response to systemic therapies including immunotherapy. We sought to investigate the prevalence of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and their association with immune checkpoints such as programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in high-risk, node-positive breast cancer of the adjuvant German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-positive (GAIN-1) trial., Patients and Methods: We evaluated TILs by haematoxylin and eosin staining and PD-1 and PD-L1 (SP263 assay) expression by immunohistochemistry in 1318 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded breast carcinomas. The association of TILs with PD-1, PD-L1, molecular intrinsic subtypes, outcome and therapy regimens (dose-dense [dd] epirubicin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide [EPC] and dd epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel and capecitabine [EC-PwX]) was statistically tested., Results: Overall TILs density was significantly associated with the expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 in immune cells (each p < 0.0001) and PD-L1 in tumour cells (p = 0.0051). TILs were more common in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumours (each p < 0.0001). On multivariate Cox regression analyses, patients with breast cancer without TILs had an unfavourable disease-free survival (DFS) in the EPC arm compared with the EC-PwX arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69 [0.44-1.06], p = 0.0915); but no differences were seen in tumours with TILs (HR = 1.24 [0.92-1.67], p = 0.1566, interaction p = 0.0336). PD-1-positive immune cells in TNBC were associated with a significantly better DFS (HR = 0.50 [0.25-0.99], p = 0.0457). PD-L1 expression had no impact on patient outcome., Conclusions: TILs predict the benefit of intensified ddEPC compared with ddEC-PwX therapy in node-positive, high-risk breast cancer. TILs, PD-1 and PD-L1 are linked to each other indicating tumour immunogenicity. Moreover, PD-1-positive immune cells have a positive prognostic impact in TNBC., Clinical Trial: NCT00196872., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Modulation of immunologic interactions in cancer tissue is a promising therapeutic strategy. To investigate the immunogenicity of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -positive and triple-negative (TN) breast cancers (BCs), we evaluated tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and immunologically relevant genes in the neoadjuvant GeparSixto trial., Patients and Methods: GeparSixto investigated the effect of adding carboplatin (Cb) to an anthracycline-plus-taxane combination (PM) on pathologic complete response (pCR). A total of 580 tumors were evaluated before random assignment for stromal TILs and lymphocyte-predominant BC (LPBC). mRNA expression of immune-activating (CXCL9, CCL5, CD8A, CD80, CXCL13, IGKC, CD21) as well as immunosuppressive factors (IDO1, PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA4, FOXP3) was measured in 481 tumors., Results: Increased levels of stromal TILs predicted pCR in univariable (P < .001) and multivariable analyses (P < .001). pCR rate was 59.9% in LPBC and 33.8% for non-LPBC (P < .001). pCR rates ≥ 75% were observed in patients with LPBC tumors treated with PMCb, with a significant test for interaction with therapy in the complete (P = .002) and HER2-positive (P = .006), but not the TNBC, cohorts. Hierarchic clustering of mRNA markers revealed three immune subtypes with different pCR rates (P < .001). All 12 immune mRNA markers were predictive for increased pCR. The highest odds ratios (ORs) were observed for PD-L1 (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34 to 1.86; P < .001) and CCL5 (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.62; P < .001)., Conclusion: Immunologic factors were highly significant predictors of therapy response in the GeparSixto trial, particularly in patients treated with Cb. After further standardization, they could be included in histopathologic assessment of BC., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)