Activation of STING-Dependent Innate Immune Signaling By S-Phase-Specific DNA Damage in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND: Previously we identified a DNA damage response-deficient (DDRD) molecular subtype within breast cancer. A 44-gene assay identifying this subtype was validated as predicting benefit from DNA-damaging chemotherapy. This subtype was defined by interferon signaling. In this study, we address the mechanism of this immune response and its possible clinical significance.

METHODS: We used immunohistochemistry (IHC) to characterize immune infiltration in 184 breast cancer samples, of which 65 were within the DDRD subtype. Isogenic cell lines, which represent DDRD-positive and -negative, were used to study the effects of chemokine release on peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) migration and the mechanism of immune signaling activation. Finally, we studied the association between the DDRD subtype and expression of the immune-checkpoint protein PD-L1 as detected by IHC. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS: We found that DDRD breast tumors were associated with CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocytic infiltration (Fisher's exact test P < .001) and that DDRD cells expressed the chemokines CXCL10 and CCL5 3.5- to 11.9-fold more than DNA damage response-proficient cells (P < .01). Conditioned medium from DDRD cells statistically significantly attracted PBMCs when compared with medium from DNA damage response-proficient cells (P < .05), and this was dependent on CXCL10 and CCL5. DDRD cells demonstrated increased cytosolic DNA and constitutive activation of the viral response cGAS/STING/TBK1/IRF3 pathway. Importantly, this pathway was activated in a cell cycle-specific manner. Finally, we demonstrated that S-phase DNA damage activated expression of PD-L1 in a STING-dependent manner.

CONCLUSIONS: We propose a novel mechanism of immune infiltration in DDRD tumors, independent of neoantigen production. Activation of this pathway and associated PD-L1 expression may explain the paradoxical lack of T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity observed in DDRD tumors. We provide a rationale for exploration of DDRD in the stratification of patients for immune checkpoint-based therapies.

Availability of stage at diagnosis, cancer treatment delay and compliance with cancer guidelines as cancer registry indicators for cancer care in Europe:Results of EUROCHIP-3 survey

EUROCHIP (European Cancer Health Indicators Project) focuses on understanding inequalities in the cancer burden, care and survival by the indicators "stage at diagnosis," "cancer treatment delay" and "compliance with cancer guidelines" as the most important indicators. Our study aims at providing insight in whether cancer registries collect well-defined variables to determine these indicators in a comparative way. Eighty-six general European population-based cancer registries (PBCR) from 32 countries responded to the questionnaire, which was developed by EUROCHIP in collaboration with ENCR (European Network of Cancer Registries) and EUROCOURSE. Only 15% of all the PBCR in EU had all three indicators available. The indicator "stage at diagnosis" was gathered for at least one cancer site by 81% (using TNM in 39%). Variables for the indicator "cancer treatment delay" were collected by 37%. Availability of type of treatment (30%), surgery date (36%), starting date of radiotherapy (26%) and starting date of chemotherapy (23%) resulted in 15% of the PBCRs to be able to gather the indicator "compliance to guidelines". Lack of data source access and qualified staff were the major reasons for not collecting all the variables. In conclusion, based on self-reporting, a few of the participating PBCRs had data available which could be used for clinical audits, evaluation of cancer care projects, survival and for monitoring national cancer control strategies. Extra efforts should be made to improve this very efficient tool to compare cancer burden and the effects of the national cancer plans over Europe and to learn from each other. © 2012 UICC.

Lung cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK:A population-based study, 2004-2007

Background: The authors consider whether differences in stage at diagnosis could explain the variation in lung cancer survival between six developed countries in 2004-2007. Methods: Routinely collected population-based data were obtained on all adults (15-99 years) diagnosed with lung cancer in 2004-2007 and registered in regional and national cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Stage data for 57 352 patients were consolidated from various classification systems. Flexible parametric hazard models on the log cumulative scale were used to estimate net survival at 1 year and the excess hazard up to 18 months after diagnosis. Results: Age-standardised 1-year net survival from non-small cell lung cancer ranged from 30% (UK) to 46% (Sweden). Patients in the UK and Denmark had lower survival than elsewhere, partly because of a more adverse stage distribution. However, there were also wide international differences in stage-specific survival. Net survival from TNM stage I non-small cell lung cancer was 16% lower in the UK than in Sweden, and for TNM stage IV disease survival was 10% lower. Similar patterns were found for small cell lung cancer. Conclusions: There are comparability issues when using population-based data but, even given these constraints, this study shows that, while differences in stage at diagnosis explain some of the international variation in overall lung cancer survival, wide disparities in stage-specific survival exist, suggesting that other factors are also important such as differences in treatment. Stage should be included in international cancer survival studies and the comparability of population-based data should be improved.

Beta-blocker usage and breast cancer survival: a nested case-control study within a UK clinical practice research datalink cohort.

Background: To investigate the association between post-diagnostic beta-blocker usage and risk of cancer-specific mortality in a large population-based cohort of female breast cancer patients.

Methods: A nested case-control study was conducted within a cohort of breast cancer patients identified from cancer registries in England(using the National Cancer Data repository) and diagnosed between 1998 and 2007. Patients who had a breast cancer-specific death(ascertained from Office of National Statistics death registration data) were each matched to four alive controls by year and age at diagnosis. Prescription data for these patients were available through the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Conditional logistic regression models were used to investigate the association between breast cancer-specific death and beta-blocker usage.

Results: Post-diagnostic use of beta-blockers was identified in 18.9% of 1435 breast cancer-specific deaths and 19.4% of their 5697 matched controls,indicating little evidence of association between beta-blocker use and breast cancer-specific mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.97,95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.13]. There was also little evidence of an association when analyses were restricted to cardio non-selective beta-blockers (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.69, 1.17). Similar results were observed in analyses of drug dosage frequency and duration, and beta-blocker type.

Conclusions: In this large UK population-based cohort of breast cancer patients,there was little evidence of an association between post-diagnostic beta-blocker usage and breast cancer progression. Further studies which include information on tumour receptor status are warranted to determine whether response to beta-blockers varies by tumour subtypes.

Supporting delivery of the recovery package for people living with and beyond cancer

Survivorship is an important issue in cancer care in the UK. More people are being diagnosed with the disease and many more are living for longer after diagnosis. The National Cancer Survivorship Initiative recommends that patients with cancer have a package of care designed to improve outcomes and support for those living with and beyond the disease. The recovery package consists of a holistic needs assessment, treatment summary, cancer care review and health and wellbeing event. Although these interventions are recommended as a way to improve care, many people do not have access to the combined package, or even some of its components. The Cancer Nursing Partnership (CNP), a collaboration of cancer nursing organisations and communities of influence, has been established to support nurses with delivery of the recovery package in practice. This article describes the package and its components, introduces the CNP and outlines the work it has carried out to date.