Abstract
Herein, we review the current findings of how a variety of accessory cells could participate in shaping the TME and supporting the mechanisms by which cancer cells undertake the EMT. EMT, a complex of phenotypic changes, promotes cancer cell invasion and creates resistance to chemotherapies. Among the accessory cells present in the EMT, immune cells (both native and adaptive) can reciprocally influence the tumor cells features, promote EMT and negatively regulate the anticancer immune response. In this review, we look over the role of EMT in crosstalk between tumor cells and the immune system, with specific emphasis on breast tumors. Finally, we suggest that understanding the role of immune cells in cancer progression could create new opportunities for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in cancer combination therapy.
Key Words: Chemokines, Cytokines, Epithelial-mesenchymal transition, Tumor microenvironment
INTRODUCTION
The TME consists of tumor cells plus a variety of accessory stroma cell types that may have a selective advantage in tumor survival and metastasis as a result of crosstalk between tumor and stroma cells[1]. Infiltrating immune cells, vascular endothelial cells, and cancer-associated fibroblasts are examples of the cells present in the TME and serve unique roles in allowing cancer cells to acquire phenotypes in favor or to the detriment of tumor progression[1,2], the latter of which is the focus of this report. Comprehensive understanding of the TME of breast cancer has revealed strong evidence to propose that TME and the associated molecules contribute to the development of tumor growth and metastasis.
The critical elements of TME in breast cancer may help us to discover the new biomarkers, including immunological and immunosuppressive markers with a function in tumor progression[3]. In this context, the role of immune cells in EMT have been well studied[4,5].
EMT process is a transition from non-motile to motile cells in which tumor cells lose cellular polarity due to certain molecular changes, including the loss of E-cadherin and occluding as well as the gain of vimentin, fibronectin, and N-cadherin[6,7]. Indeed, EMT is the main cause of heterogeneity of carcinoma cells, resulting in the alteration of their biological functions and phenotypic characteristics[8]. It is worth mentioning that immune editing may cause the tumor cells to lose their capability of expressing tumor antigens, consequently leading to a poor recognition of the tumor cells by the immune cells, and a more enhanced EMT progression[9]. In other words, the immune system creates an immunosuppressive TME, permitting tumor cells to evade the immune recognition and destruction[9,10].
Knowing that tumor stroma cells can either enhance or inhibit tumor cell progression, a great deal of interest has been taken toward elucidating the underlying mechanism behind immune activation or immune tolerance. In the current review, we focus on the immunosuppressive role of the stroma cells in favor of tumor progression. In order to define the role of immune system in EMT process, it is worthy to describe different types of immune cells in TME. In this regard, recent studies have highlighted that EMT is associated with the presence of innate immune cells, including TAMs polarized to M2, MDSCs, TANs and NK cells along with adaptive immune cells compromising two broad types of T lymphocyte (CD4+ and CD8+ T cells) and Tregs[11-15].
Key immune cell types in TME
One of the cell populations of the innate immune system influencing the TME is macrophages. They originate from the circulating monocytes that are recruited to TME, mostly by chemokines such as MCP-1/CCL2 and CSF-1 derived from tumor cells or mesenchymal stem cells, which were later polarized and denoted as TAMs[7,16]. Besides chemokines, TAMs can be recruited by hypoxia condition presents in tumors, which subsequently increase the hypoxia-inducible factor-α production and pro-angiogenesis factors like VEGF, basic fibroblast growth factor, TNF-α, and CXCL12, assisting in remodeling the extracellular matrix and causing angiogenesis promotion[17-19]. It has been reported that isolated TAMs from breast cancer tissues produce high amounts of pro-tumor cytokines, including CCL18, CCL17, CCL22, and IL-10 and reveal a CD206high/human leukocyte antigen-DRlow phenotype relating to the TME immunosuppressive phenotype[20]. Interestingly, TAMs can acquire different functional phenotypes depending on TME signals; they are capable of having either the classical anti-tumor M1 type in response to IFN-γ or lipopolysaccharide[21] or the alternative pro-tumor M2 type by IL-4, IL-10, IL-13, TGF-β and lactic acid[20]. Behavior of the tumor cells varies according to the type of TAMs. In this context, M1 TAMs are highly phagocytic and influence the Th1 response through the secretion of the inflammatory factors like IL-1, IL-6, IL-12, and TNF-α, reactive oxygen species, and inducible nitric oxide synthase[21,22]. Contrary to M1, M2 TAMs participate in Th2 response and cancer progression and affect anticancer therapies via the secretion of the immunosuppressive cytokine such as TGF-β and mitogenic growth factors, including PDGF and epidermal growth factor[23,24]. The effect of TAMs is proportionate to the level of cytokines in TME, i.e. the low level of TNF-α causes inflammation and cell survival and upregulates negative regulators of apoptosis; however, the high level of TNF-α promotes the apoptosis and cell death.
Beside cytokines, TAMs are known to enhance the expression of COX2, which correlates with the secretion of IL-6, PGE2, and MMP9 and promotes EMT process in cancer cells, including breast cancer, by activating the Akt pathway and stabilizing the EMT-promoting transcription factors like SNAIL[22,24]. Furthermore, the positive feedback loop between GM-CSF secreted from breast cancer cells and CCL18 from M2-TAMs facilitates EMT process, induces tumor progression and reduces the patient’s survival in breast cancer[20]. Moreover, GM-CSF triggers the function of the transcription factors such as STAT5, NF-B as well as ERK signaling in TAMs to increase their recruitment and enhance their polarization to M2 type and finally cause TGF-1 expression[25]. It is important to point out that due to a strong correlation between ferritin light chain released from M2-TAMs and aggressive phenotype of breast tumors, these tumors have to be more intensively followed-up[26]. Interestingly, TAMs constitute a major component (5-40%) of the tumor mass in breast cancers, which are found fourfold higher than normal mass in the early benign proliferative regions, while they increase to twentyfold in the invasive front of the tumors where EMT is usually initiated. This observation could be suggested as a diagnostic tool to distinguish the metastatic from non-metastatic region[22,27]. In line with it, the metastatic tumor microenvironment is characterized by staining three parts, including migrative cancer cells, TAMs, and endothelial cells. In breast cancer, in particular, tumor microenvironment of metastasis facilitates metastasis, and due to this reason, it is proposed as a promising target in clinical application and drug development[24]. In addition, vessel-associated macrophages assist the intravasation of cancer cells into vasculature through the secretion of epidermal growth factor, which it is crucial for EMT induction[24]. Overall, it can be suggested that M2 TAMs promote the cancer cells toward EMT and might have a chance in remodeling of TME[20]. More notable is that chemotherapy combining with M2 TAM deletion would provide an encouraging approach in cancer therapy[26].
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes
EMT process is associated with a decrease in the number of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in TME, which is likely related to the expression of immunosuppressive cytokines such as IL-10 and TGF-β[28] as well as to the inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules, including PD-L1, PD-L2, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4, T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain-containing-3, B7-H3, CD73, and CD47[28-30]. Breast cancer progression could also be affected by dysregulating different T-cell subsets in TME. In this regard, the presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in TNBC and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2+ breast tumor subtypes is associated with a good prognosis as well as favorable chemotherapy response[31]. On the contrary, the high level of TGF-β, as an effector cytokine influencing the differentiation of CD4+, promotes the differentiation of CD4+FOXP3+ Tregs and inhibits the function of Th1 cells[32]. Importantly, Tregs have a decisive role in the suppression of TME[33]. It is significant to note that human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer individuals have a higher level of Tregs compared with the healthy ones[10]. EMT mediated the expression of immunosuppressive molecules like indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase in TAMs and upregulation of an extracellular matrix protein such as SPARC in BBCs, which promotes the infiltration of Tregs, mast cells, and MDSCs into TME[33-35]. Nonetheless, SPARC is a protein with dual functions, of which its immune-suppressive activity is the subject of interest, considering its relatedness to EMT[36].
Furthermore, immune checkpoint molecules can regulate EMT process. It was revealed that the expression of PD-L1 on breast tumors is connected with resistance to CD8+-mediated cell killing[37]. On the other side, PD-L1 expression in the aggressive tumor cells induces PD-1 on T cells, which consequently dampens cytotoxic T-lymphocyte attack, resulting in the escape of tumor cells from recognition by the immune system[38]. Although PD-L1 expression is significantly higher in the invasive than non-invasive breast cancers, it is promising due to favorable outcomes of recent monoclonal antibodies against PD-1 or PD-L1 in cancer immunotherapy[39]. Among the immune checkpoints, tumor-derived CD73 in human breast cancers was also found to significantly suppress CTL and NK responses[40]. In this context, CD4+ Foxp3+ Tregs are a key source of host CD73 in TME, which is related to poor prognosis and chemoresistance in the TNBC and contributes to EMT-mediated trastuzumab resistance and TGF-β–mediated tumor immune escape[40].
A T-cell subpopulation that is well-known for the anti-tumor function is NKT cells, which act as a bridge between the innate and adaptive immune system[41,42]. These types of T cells in collaboration with NK-cells and Th1 cytokines demonstrate a strong anti-tumor immunity. Interestingly, Tregs can suppress differentiation of NKT cells leading to reduction in the number of NKT cells in the advanced cancer patients. Meanwhile, MDSCs could also prevent the anti-tumor response of NKT cells via TGF-β production[10,43]. Indeed, if the immunosuppressive feature of the microenvironment overcomes due to the presence of both immunosuppressive factors and cells, it would lead to tumor survival and eventual cancer progression.
NK cells
NK cells are innate lymphoid cells known for their immune surveillance function against cancer cells, which is dependent on the balance between NK cell-activating and -inhibiting ligands expressing in tumor cells[44,45]. Indeed, NK cells are heterogeneous and characterized by two common phenotypes: CD56brightCD16dim/neg (CD56bright) and the CD56dim/CD16bright (CD56dim)[46,47]. The CD56bright NK cells mostly enhance IFN-γ production and represent a strong cytotoxic function[48]. Interestingly, breast tumors recruit the CD56bright NK cells into the TME through releasing a high level of CCL19 and a low level of CXCL12, highlighting the role of NK cells in cancer patient’s survival[49]. EMT process reduces E-cadherin and induces cell adhesion molecule 1 expression in the tumor cells, leading to the enhancement of NK cell cytotoxicity susceptibility[46]. In this context, it has been shown that the upregulation of cell adhesion molecule 1, as an NK cell-activating ligand, is associated with the patient’s survival in breast cancer individuals and results in the metastasis reduction[44,46]. It is important to note that the high cytotoxic capacity of NK cells belongs to the ones present in the blood circulation and lymph nodes, which can eliminate the disseminated metastatic cancer cells within the first 24 hours[50]. It has been suggested that breast tumors, independent of the subtype, secrete a panel of factors that modify NK cell functions causing tumor cells to escape from anti-tumor immunity function of NK cells[49]. It has also been reported that EMT inducer factors such as TGF-β1, PGE2, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, sMICA, and LGALS3 are produced by a variety of immune suppressor cells like tumor-associated fibroblasts, Tregs, MDSCs and even tumor cells attenuated NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity[51,52]. Another important event occurs in TME is the expression of the immune-checkpoints such as PD-L1, T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain-containing-3, TIGIT, and SIGIRR by NK cells similar to that happens in tumors, which results in tumor adaptive resistance to NK cells immune surveillance[53]. Importantly, using the specific monoclonal antibodies for blocking these checkpoints can improve the NK-mediated cytotoxicity and inhibit metastasis dissemination[53].
TANs
Neutrophils are abundant myeloid-derived circulating cells, although they can migrate to a number of tissues[54]. In this context, accumulating evidence has demonstrated that neutrophils constitute a significant part of the TME as TANs with both pro- and anti-tumorigenic properties[55]. TANs are recruited into TME through releasing the cytokines consisting of IL-8, G-CSF, and IL-17 by tumor cells[56]. TANs frequently represent two phenotypes: anti-tumorigenic (N1) or pro-tumorigenic (N2) phenotype[56]. N1 TANs upregulate OSM upon interaction with BBCs, leading to an inhibitory effect on tumor cell proliferation. In contrast, some studies have revealed that neutrophils upregulate the OSM upon GM-CSF produced by BBCs, which in turn enhances VEGF production and promotes tumor growth and metastasis[57]. In another study, cathepsin G has been reported as a neutrophil-derived serine protease, which enhances migration and invasion potential of breast tumor cells[49]. N2 TANs can educate the other immune cells toward the pro-tumor type in the TME and further stimulate angiogenesis, leading to the poor prognosis of patients. In other words, neutrophils secrete TGF-β and OSM within the TME and drive the macrophages differentiation toward M2 type[58]. Remarkably, neutrophils interplay with T cells in the TME, i.e. T cells enhance the G-CSF expression, which further leads to neutrophil expansion and modifies the neutrophil phenotype[59]. Then the altered neutrophils release inducible nitric oxide synthase, which subsequently reduces the cytotoxicity of CD8 T cells in the TME and enhances breast cancer progression[59]. A strong correlation presents between N2 TAN in the TME and breast cancer subtypes, as TANs are predominantly observed in TNBC subtype of breast cancer[3]. Consistently, a high expression level of TGF-β was observed in TNBC contributing to the neutrophil chemotaxis; however, TGF-β may also induce a pro-tumorigenic N2 TAN phenotype[3]. Moreover, tumor cells could activate neutrophils in a cell-by-cell contact manner causing the expression of hyaluronan from tumor cells that effectively promotes tumor cell migration[60]. In addition, some studies have pointed out the importance of TANs in cancer progression in the late-stage of tumors wherein chronic inflammation could be developed. Inversely, TANs in the early-stage of tumors may exert anti-tumor properties[49].
MDSCs
MDSCs often arise as a result of cytokines such as IL‐1β, IL‐6, and IL‐8 in TME[61]. Migration of MDSCs to breast tumors is regulated by kruppel-like factor-4 transcription factor through CXCL5/CXCR2 axis, leading to EMT process[62]. MDSCs are heterogeneous immature myeloid cells that develop in spleen, peripheral blood, or tumor tissues with potent immune suppressive activities in TME and contribute to tumor growth and resistance to various chemotherapies[63]. MDSCs, mostly consist of two subsets: the monocytic (M)-MDSC (CD11b+ Ly6G− Ly6Chi) and the polymorphonuclear-MDSC (CD11b+ Ly6G+ Ly6Clo). However, it has been reported that CD45+Ly6GmiLy6CloCD11b+ is the dominant phenotype recruiting the TME of aggressive breast cancer. SPARC and CXCR2 are two factors expressed in MDSCs and required for the acquisition of MDSC suppressive phenotype[62,64,65]. MDSC differentiation is facilitated by the tumor-derived cytokines, including G-CSF, GM-CSF, VEGF, and chemokines such as CCL2 and CXCL12[62,66-69]. Moreover, Thrombospondin 1 expression in the surface of MDSC-derived exosomes also causes MDSCs chemotaxis and migration[64].
Of note, in the crosstalk between MDSCs and T cells in TME, activated T cells stimulate STAT3 phosphorylation on MDSCs through IL-10, resulting in the expression of immune checkpoint B7-H1[70]. On the other hand, the expression of B7-H1 ligands and MHC class II on MDSCs causes the upregulation of two inhibitory molecules, PD-1 and LAG-3, on T cells, which is associated with T cell dysfunction and immunosuppressive conditions[70,71]. Additionally, MDSCs play a significant role in FoxP3+ Tregs development as well as the expression of immunosuppressive factors like IL-10 and COX2, which suppress T cells immune response[65,72]. The literature survey has demonstrated that the targeted depletion of MDSCs in various cancers increases the adaptive immunity and remodels the TME[73].
In conclusion, it would seem that broad determining role of immune cells recruited to the tumor site through cytokines and chemokines influence cancer progression, which in turn expand the new opportunities for therapeutic interventions in cancer combination therapy. By using agents to target simultaneously cancer and stroma cells, the survival outcomes and quality of life would be positively altered. Moreover, the stroma compartments consist of potential and specific tumor biomarkers that would be valuable to assess the metastatic stage of cancer.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
None declared.
References
- 1.Romeo E, Caserta CA, Rumio C, Marcucci F. The vicious cross-talk between tumor cells with an emt phenotype and cells of the immune system. Cells. 2019;8(5):460. doi: 10.3390/cells8050460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Plava J, Cihova M, Burikova M, Matuskova M, Kucerova L, Miklikova S. Recent advances in understanding tumor stroma-mediated chemoresistance in breast cancer. Molecular cancer. 2019;18(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s12943-019-0960-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Barriga V, Kuol N, Nurgali K, Apostolopoulos V. The complex interaction between the tumor micro-environment and immune checkpoints in breast cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2019;11(8):1205. doi: 10.3390/cancers11081205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Jiang Y, Zhan H. Communication between EMT and PD-L1 signaling: New insights into tumor immune evasion. Cancer letters. 2020;468:72–81. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2019.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Chockley PJ, Keshamouni VG. Immunological consequences of epithelial–mesenchymal transition in tumor progression. Jurnal of immunology. 2016;197(3):691–698. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1600458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.De Matteis S, Canale M, Verlicchi A, Bronte G, Delmonte A, Crinò L, Martinelli G, Ulivi P. Advances in molecular mechanisms and immunotherapy involving the immune cell-promoted epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in lung cancer. Journal of oncology. 2019:Article ID 7475364. doi: 10.1155/2019/7475364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Son H, Moon A. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cell invasion. Toxicological research. 2010;26(4):245–252. doi: 10.5487/TR.2010.26.4.245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Konradi S, Yasmin N, Haslwanter D, Weber M, Gesslbauer B, Sixt M, Strobl H. Langerhans cell maturation is accompanied by induction of N-cadherin and the transcriptional regulators of epithelial-mesenchymal transition ZEB1/2. European journal of immunology. 2014;44(2):553–560. doi: 10.1002/eji.201343681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Teeuwssen M, Fodde R. Cell heterogeneity and phenotypic plasticity in metastasis formation: The case of colon cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2019;11(9):1368. doi: 10.3390/cancers11091368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Nahas GR, Patel SA, Bliss SA, Rameshwar P. Can breast cancer stem cells evade the immune system? Current medicinal chemistry. 2012;19(35):6036–6049. doi: 10.2174/092986712804485863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ferrari SM, Fallahi P, Galdiero MR, Ruffilli I, Elia G, Ragusa F, Rosaria Paparo S, Patrizio A, Mazzi V, Varricchi G, Marone G, Antonelli A. Immune and inflammatory cells in thyroid cancer microenvironment. International journal of molecular sciences. 2019;20(18):4413. doi: 10.3390/ijms20184413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Schreiber RD, Old LJ, Smyth MJ. Cancer immunoediting: integrating immunity’s roles in cancer suppression and promotion. Science. 2011;331(6024):1565–1570. doi: 10.1126/science.1203486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Cantoni C, Huergo-Zapico L, Parodi M, Pedrazzi M, Mingari MC, Moretta A, et al. NK cells, tumor cell transition, and tumor progression in solid malignancies: New hints for NK-based immunotherapy? Journal of immunology research . 2016;2016:4684268. doi: 10.1155/2016/4684268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Liu J, Li C, Zhang L, Liu K, Jiang X, Wang X, Yang L, Liang W, Liu K, Hu J, Li F. Association of tumour-associated macrophages with cancer cell EMT, invasion, and metastasis of Kazakh oesophageal squamous cell cancer. Diagnostic pathology . 2019;14 doi: 10.1186/s13000-019-0834-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Chae YK, Chang S, Ko T, Anker J, Agte S, Iams W, Choi WM, Lee K, Cruz M. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) signature is inversely associated with T-cell infiltration in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) Scientific reports . 2018;8(1):2918. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21061-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Dominguez C, David JM, Palena C. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and inflammation at the site of the primary tumor. Seminars in cancer biology. 2017;47:177–184. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2017.08.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ke X, Chen C, Song Y, Cai Q, Li J, Tang Y, Han XU, QU W, Chen A, Wang H, XU G, Liu D. Hypoxia modifies the polarization of macrophages and their inflammatory microenvironment, and inhibits malignant behavior in cancer cells. Oncology letters. 2019;18(6):5871–5878. doi: 10.3892/ol.2019.10956. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Ruytinx P, Proost P, Van Damme J, Struyf S. Chemokine-induced macrophage polarization in inflammatory conditions. Frontiers in immunology. 2018;9:1930. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Xuan W, Qu Q, Zheng B, Xiong S, Fan GH. The chemotaxis of M1 and M2 macrophages is regulated by different chemokines. Journal of leukocyte biology. 2015;97(1):61–69. doi: 10.1189/jlb.1A0314-170R. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Su S, Liu Q, Chen J, Chen J, Chen F, He C, Huang D, Wu W, Lin L, Huang W, Zhang J, Cui X, Zheng F, Li H, Yao H, Su F, Song E. A positive feedback loop between mesenchymal-like cancer cells and macrophages is essential to breast cancer metastasis. Cancer cell . 2014;25(5):605–620. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.03.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lu S, Li D, Xi L, Calderone R. Interplay of interferon-gamma and macrophage polarization during Talaromyces marneffei infection. Microbial pathogenesis . 2019;134:103594. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Sousa S, Brion R, Lintunen M, Kronqvist P, Sandholm J, Mönkkönen J, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Lauttia S, Tynninen O, Joensuu H, Heymann D, Maatta JA. Human breast cancer cells educate macrophages toward the M2 activation status. Breast cancer research. 2015;17:101. doi: 10.1186/s13058-015-0621-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Raschioni C, Bottai G, Sagona A, Errico V, Testori A, Gatzemeier W, Corsi F, Tinterri C, Roncalli M, Santarpia L, Tommaso LD. CXCR4/CXCL12 signaling and protumor macrophages in primary tumors and sentinel lymph nodes are involved in luminal B breast cancer progression. Disease markers. 2018;2018:5018671. doi: 10.1155/2018/5018671. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Guo S, Deng CX. Effect of stromal cells in tumor microenvironment on metastasis initiation. International Journal of biological sciences. 2018;14(14):2083–2093. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.25720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.ElShamy WM, Sami E, Paul BT, Koziol JA. The immunosuppressive microenvironment in BRCA1-IRIS-overexpressing TNBC tumors is induced by bidirectional interaction with tumor-associated macrophages. Cancer research. 2020 doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-2374. DOI: 10.1158/ 0008-5472.CAN-19-2374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Jézéquel P, Campion L, Spyratos F, Loussouarn D, Campone M, Guerin-Charbonnel C, Joalland MP, André J, Descotes F, Grenot C, Roy P, Carlioz A, Martin PM, Chassevent A, Jourdan Ml, Ricolleau G. Validation of tumor-associated macrophage ferritin light chain as a prognostic biomarker in node-negative breast cancer tumors: A multicentric 2004 national PHRC study. International journal of cancer. 2012;131(2):426–437. doi: 10.1002/ijc.26397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hussein MR, Hassan HI. Analysis of the mononuclear inflammatory cell infiltrate in the normal breast, benign proliferative breast disease, in situ and infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas: preliminary observations. Journal of clinical pathology. 2006;59(9):972–977. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2005.031252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Maimela NR, Liu S, Zhang Y. Fates of CD8+ T cells in Tumor Microenvironment. Computational and structural biotechnology journal . 2019;17:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2018.11.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Buisseret L, Pommey S, Allard B, Garaud S, Bergeron M, Cousineau I, Ameye L, Bareche Y, Paesmans M, Crown JPA, Di Leo A, Loi S, Piccart , Gebhart M, Willard Gallo K, Sotiriou C, Stagg J. Clinical significance of CD73 in triple-negative breast cancer: multiplex analysis of a phase III clinical trial. Annals of oncology . 2018;29(4):1056–1062. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Neo SY, Yang Y, Record J, Ma R, Chen X, Chen Z, Tobin NP, Blake E, Seitz C, Thomas R, Wagner AK, Andersson J, de Boniface J, Bergh J, Murray S, Alici E, Childs R, Johansson M, Westerberg LS, Haglund F, Hartman J. Lundqvist J CD73 immune checkpoint defines regulatory NK cells within the tumor microenvironment. Journal of clinical investigation. 2020;130(3):1185–1198. doi: 10.1172/JCI128895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Tower H, Ruppert M, Britt K. The immune microenvironment of breast cancer progression. Cancers (Basel) 2019;11(9):1375. doi: 10.3390/cancers11091375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Zhang S. The role of transforming growth factor β in T helper 17 differentiation. Immunology. 2018;155(1):24–35. doi: 10.1111/imm.12938. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Wu X, Tian J, Wang S. Insight into non-pathogenic th17 cells in autoimmune diseases. Frontiers in immunology. 2018;9:1112. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Cserni G, Serfozo O, Ambrózay E, Markó L, Krenács L. Spontaneous pathological complete regression of high-grade triple-negative breast cancer with axillary metastasis. Polish journal of pathology. 2019;70(2):139–143. doi: 10.5114/pjp.2019.87105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Brochez L, Meireson A, Chevolet I, Sundahl N, Ost P, Kruse V. Challenging PD-L1 expressing cytotoxic T cells as a predictor for response to immunotherapy in melanoma. Nature communications. 2018;9(1):1–3. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05047-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Ma J, Gao S, Xie X, Sun E, Zhang M, Zhou Q, Lu C. Sparc inhibits breast cancer bone metastasis and may be a clinical therapeutic target. Oncology letters. 2017;14:5876–5882. doi: 10.3892/ol.2017.6925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Planes-Laine G, Rochigneux P, Bertucci F, Chrétien AS, Viens P, Sabatier R, Gonçalves A. PD-1/PD-L1 targeting in breast cancer: the first clinical evidences are emerging—a literature review. Cancers. 2019;11:1033. doi: 10.3390/cancers11071033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Barclay J, Creswell J, León J. Cancer immunotherapy and the PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint pathway. Archivos espanoles de urologia. 2018;71(4):393–399. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Lou J, Zhou Y, Huang J, Qian X. Relationship between PD-L1 expression and clinical characteristics in patients with breast invasive ductal carcinoma. Open medicine. 2017;12(1):288–292. doi: 10.1515/med-2017-0042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Turcotte M, Allard D, Mittal D, Bareche Y, Buisseret L, José V, Pommey S, Delisle V, Loi S, Joensuuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Sotiriou C, Smyth MJ, Stagg J. Cd73 promotes resistance to her2/erbb2 antibody therapy. Cancer research. 2017;77(20):5652–5663. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Nair S, Dhodapkar MV. Natural killer t cells in cancer immunotherapy. Frontiers in immunology. 2017;8:1178. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Krijgsman D, Hokland M, Kuppen PJK. The role of natural killer T cells in cancer—a phenotypical and functional approach. Frontiers in immunology. 2018;9:367. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Pilones KA, Kawashima N, Yang AM, Babb JS, Formenti SC, Demaria S. Invariant natural killer T cells regulate breast cancer response to radiation and CTLA-4 blockade. Clinical cancer research. 2009;15(2):597–606. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Okita R, Shimizu K, Nakata M. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition-induced metastasis could be a bait for natural killer cells. Journal of thoracic disease. 2018;10(Suppl 26):S3143–S3146. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.08.19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Chockley PJ, Chen J, Chen G, Beer DG, Standiford TJ, Keshamouni VG. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition leads to NK cell–mediated metastasis-specific immunosurveillance in lung cancer. The Journal of clinical investigation. 2018;128(4):1384–1396. doi: 10.1172/JCI97611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Chockley P, Keshamouni V. Metastasis-specific, NK cell-mediated, immune surveillance of lung cancer. The journal of immunology. 2018;200(1 Supplement) [Google Scholar]
- 47.Poli A, Michel T, Thérésine M, Andrès E, Hentges F, Zimmer J. CD56bright natural killer (NK) cells: an important NK cell subset. Immunology. 2009;126(4):458–465. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2008.03027.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Mukherjee N, Ji N, Hurez V, Curiel TJ, Montgomery MO, Braun AJ, Nicolas M, Aquilera M, Kaushik D, Liu Q, Ruan J, Kendrick KA, Svatek RS. Intratumoral CD56bright natural killer cells are associated with improved survival in bladder cancer. Oncotarget. 2018;9(92):36492–36502. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.26362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Lecot P, Sarabi M, Pereira Abrantes M, Mussard J, Koeanderman L, Caux C, Bendriss- Vermare N, Michallet mc. Neutrophil heterogeneity in cancer: from biology to therapies. Frontiers in immunology. 2019;10:2155. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Lorenzo-Herrero S, López-Soto A, Sordo-Bahamonde C, Gonzalez-Rodriguez AP, Vitale M, Gonzalez S. NK cell-based immunotherapy in cancer metastasis. Cancers. 2019;11:29. doi: 10.3390/cancers11010029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Peltanova B, Raudenska M, Masarik M. Effect of tumor microenvironment on pathogenesis of the head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review. Molecular cancer. 2019;18(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12943-019-0983-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Vitale M, Cantoni C, Pietra G, Mingari MC, Moretta L. Effect of tumor cells and tumor microenvironment on NK‐cell function. European journal of immunology. 2014;44(6):1582–1592. doi: 10.1002/eji.201344272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Roato I, Vitale M. The uncovered role of immune cells and NK cells in the regulation of bone metastasis. Frontiers in endocrinology (Lausanne) 2019;10:145. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Masucci MT, Minopoli M, Carriero MV. Tumor associated neutrophils their role in tumorigenesis, metastasis, prognosis and therapy. Frontiers in oncology . 2019;9:1146. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Mizuno R, Kawada K, Itatani Y, Ogawa R, Kiyasu Y, Sakai Y. The role of tumor-associated neutrophils in colorectal cancer. International journal of molecular sciences . 2019;20:529. doi: 10.3390/ijms20030529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Leach J, Morton JP, Sansom OJ. Neutrophils: homing in on the myeloid mechanisms of metastasis. Molecular immunology . 2019;110:69–76. doi: 10.1016/j.molimm.2017.12.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Grenier A, Dehoux M, Boutten A, Arce-Vicioso M, Durand Gv, Gougerot-Pocidalo MA, Chollet-Martin S. Oncostatin M production and regulation by human polymorphonuclear neutrophils. Blood. 1999;93(4):1413–1421. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Lauber S, Wong S, Cutz JC, Tanaka M, Barra N, Lhoták S, Ashkar A, Douglas Richards C. Novel function of Oncostatin M as a potent tumour‐promoting agent in lung. International journal of cancer. 2015;136(4):831–843. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Wu L, Saxena S, Awaji M, Singh RK. Tumor-associated neutrophils in cancer: going pro. Cancers . 2019;11:564. doi: 10.3390/cancers11040564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Zhang X, Zhang W, Yuan X, Fu M, Qian H, Xu W. Neutrophils in cancer development and progression: roles, mechanisms, and implications. International journal of oncology. . 2016;49(3):857–867. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2016.3616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Katsura A, Tamura Y, Hokari S, Harada M, Morikawa M, Sakurai T, Takahashi K, Mizutani A, Nishida J, Yokoyma Y, Morishita V, Murakami T, Ehata S, Miyazono K, Koinuma D. ZEB1-regulated inflammatory phenotype in breast cancer cells. Molecular oncology . 2017;11(9):1241–1262. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.12098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Zhu H, Gu Y, Xue Y, Yuan M, Cao X, Liu Q. CXCR2+ MDSCs promote breast cancer progression by inducing EMT and activated T cell exhaustion. Oncotarget. 2017;8(70):114554–114567. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.23020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Gabrilovich DI. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Cancer immunology research. 2017;5(1):3–8. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Chiodoni C, Sangaletti S, Colombo MP. Matricellular proteins tune myeloid-derived suppressor cell recruitment and function in breast cancer. Journal of leukocyte biology . 2017;102(2):287–292. doi: 10.1189/jlb.3MR1016-447R. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Sangaletti S, Tripodo C, Santangelo A, Castioni N, Portararo P, Gulino A, Botti L, Parenza M, Cappetti B, Orlandi R, Tagliabud E, Chiodoni C, Colombo MP. Mesenchymal transition of high-grade breast carcinomas depends on extracellular matrix control of myeloid suppressor cell activity. Cell reports . 2016;17(1):233–248. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.08.075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Sangaletti S, Talarico G, Chiodoni C, Cappetti B, Botti L, Portararo P, Gulino A, Maria Consonni F, Sica A, Ranson G, Di Nicola M, Tripodo C, Colombo M. Sparc is a new myeloid-derived suppressor cell marker licensing suppressive activities. Frontiers in immunology. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Yu F, Shi Y, Wang J, Li J, Fan D, Ai W. Deficiency of Kruppel-like factor KLF4 in mammary tumor cells inhibits tumor growth and pulmonary metastasis and is accompanied by compromised recruitment of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. International journal of cancer. 2013;133(12):2872–2883. doi: 10.1002/ijc.28302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Cheng Y, Ma XL, Wei YQ, Wei XW. Potential roles and targeted therapy of the CXCLs/CXCR2 axis in cancer and inflammatory diseases. Biochimica et biophysica acta reviews on cancer. 2019;1871(2):289–312. doi: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2019.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Umansky V, Blattner C, Gebhardt C, Utikal J. The role of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) in cancer progression. Vaccines (Basel) 2016;4(4) doi: 10.3390/vaccines4040036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Pinton L, Solito S, Damuzzo V, Francescato S, Pozzuoli A, Berizzi A, Mocellin S, Rossi CR, Bronte V, Mandruzzato S. Activated T cells sustain myeloid-derived suppressor cell-mediated immune suppression. Oncotarget. 2016;7(2):1168–1184. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.6662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Ostrand-Rosenberg S, Horn LA, Haile ST. The programmed death-1 immune-suppressive pathway: barrier to antitumor immunity. Journal of immunology. 2014;193(8):3835–3841. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1401572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Singh S, Mehta N, Lilan J, Budhthoki MB, Chao F, Yong L. Initiative action of tumor-associated macrophage during tumor metastasis. Biochimie open. 2017;4:8–18. doi: 10.1016/j.biopen.2016.11.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Ma X, Wang M, Yin T, Zhao Y, Wei X. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells promote metastasis in breast cancer after the stress of operative removal of the primary cancer. Frontiers in oncology. 2019;9:855. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
