| Title |
Prognostic and predictive value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Oncology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12094-015-1391-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
X. Yu, Z. Zhang, Z. Wang, P. Wu, F. Qiu, J. Huang |
| Abstract |
Breast cancer is the most common invasive cancer to affect women in the world. Studies showed tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes can exhibit both beneficial and harmful effects on the biology and clinical outcome of breast cancer, the conclusion still remains incomplete. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and breast cancer. A comprehensive search strategy was used to search relevant literatures in PubMed and the ISI Web of Science. The correlation among TILs and breast cancer clinicopathological features and prognosis was analyzed by using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0. Seventeen eligible studies consisting of 12,968 participants were included. We found that higher value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes had no relationship with breast cancer clinicopathological variables. Interestingly, it was correlated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in majority (pooled RR 2.43, 95 % CI 1.99-2.97). Moreover, higher value of total tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (both intraepithelial and stromal) was associated with better prognosis (pooled HR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.83-0.94), whereas some subtypes predicted a worse prognosis. This meta-analysis indicated that high value of total TILs is not associated with breast cancer clinicopathological features, but can predict a favorable outcome for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in majority except for hormone receptor (-) subtype. And higher total TILs (both intraepithelial TILs and stromal TILs) may be the potential better prognostic indicators, while some subtypes like PD-1(+) TILs and Foxp3(+) TILs show a worse prognosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 163 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 11% |
| Researcher | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 29 | 18% |
| Unknown | 49 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 10% |
| Unknown | 55 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,323,943
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#1,011
of 1,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,121
of 279,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#25
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,305 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.