SFSPM Novembre Valeur prédictive et pronostique de l infiltrat immunitaire dans les cancers du sein traités par chimiothérapie néoadjuvante

Similar documents
Prognostic significance of stroma tumorinfiltrating lymphocytes according to molecular subtypes of breast cancer

What to do after pcr in different subtypes?

Impact of BMI on pathologic complete response (pcr) following neo adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for locally advanced breast cancer

Locoregional treatment Session Oral Abstract Presentation Saulo Brito Silva

UK Interdisciplinary Breast Cancer Symposium. Should lobular phenotype be considered when deciding treatment? Michael J Kerin

Triple Negative Breast Cancer

How to Use MRI Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NAC) in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer

Controversies in Breast Pathology ELENA PROVENZANO ADDENBROOKES HOSPITAL, CAMBRIDGE

Evaluation of Pathologic Response in Breast Cancer Treated with Primary Systemic Therapy

TNBC: What s new Déjà vu All Over Again? Lucy R. Langer, MD MSHS Compass Oncology - SABCS 2016 Review February 21, 2017

Claudin-4 Expression in Triple Negative Breast Cancer: Correlation with Androgen Receptors and Ki-67 Expression

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Time to Slice and Dice? Carsten Denkert, MD Charité University Hospital Berlin, Germany

Tumor-infiltrating immune cell profiles and their change after neoadjuvant chemotherapy predict response and prognosis of breast cancer

Assessment of Risk Recurrence: Adjuvant Online, OncotypeDx & Mammaprint

Sesiones interhospitalarias de cáncer de mama. Revisión bibliográfica 4º trimestre 2015

The Role of Pathologic Complete Response (pcr) as a Surrogate Marker for Outcomes in Breast Cancer: Where Are We Now?

Post Neoadjuvant therapy: issues in interpretation

Residual cancer burden in locally advanced breast cancer: a superior tool

Editorial Process: Submission:05/09/2017 Acceptance:08/23/2018

Breast : ASCO Abstracts for Review

Only Estrogen receptor positive is not enough to predict the prognosis of breast cancer

PMRT for N1 breast cancer :CONS. Won Park, M.D., Ph.D Department of Radiation Oncology Samsung Medical Center

Clinicopathological Factors Affecting Distant Metastasis Following Loco-Regional Recurrence of breast cancer. Cheol Min Kang 2018/04/05

Adjuvant endocrine therapy (essentials in ER positive early breast cancer)

Clinical significance and prognostic value of receptor conversion in hormone receptor positive breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: Local Therapy Highlights

Neoadjuvant Treatment of. of Radiotherapy

Point of View on Early Triple Negative

Radiotherapy Management of Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Julia White MD Professor, Radiation Oncology

DO YOUNG AGE AND TRIPLE NEGATIVE MOLECULAR SUBTYPE HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON SURVIVAL IN PATIENTS WITH EARLY STAGE BREAST CANCER?

A Study to Evaluate the Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Hormonal and Her-2 Receptor Status in Carcinoma Breast

Neoadjuvant (Primary) Systemic Therapy

The Oncotype DX Assay in the Contemporary Management of Invasive Early-stage Breast Cancer

International Society of Breast Pathology. Immune Targeting in Breast Cancer. USCAP 2017 Annual Meeting

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

In Honour of Dr. Neera Patel

Gábor CSERNI. 1. Bács-Kiskun County Teaching Hospital, Kecskemét 2. University of Szeged, Szeged

Breast Imaging: Multidisciplinary Approach. Madelene Lewis, MD Assistant Professor Associate Program Director Medical University of South Carolina

Pregnancy and Breast Cancer. Elena Provenzano Addenbrookes Hospital Cambridge

Long term survival study of de-novo metastatic breast cancers with or without primary tumor resection

Implications of Progesterone Receptor Status for the Biology and Prognosis of Breast Cancers

10/15/2012. Biologic Subtypes of TNBC. Topics. Topics. Histopathology Molecular pathology Clinical relevance

Circulating Tumor Cells in non- Metastatic Triple Negative Breast Cancer

Breast cancer in elderly patients (70 years and older): The University of Tennessee Medical Center at Knoxville 10 year experience

Evaluación de la respuesta patológica completa tras tratamiento neoadyuvante en cáncer de mama. José Palacios Calvo Servicio de Anatomía Patológica

Triple negative breast cancer -neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy

Present Role of Immunohistochemistry in the. Subtypes. Beppe Viale European Institute of Oncology University of Milan Milan-Italy

Enterprise Interest Speaker and consultant for Astrazeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi Resarch grants from BMS, Roche, MSD, Novartis

EARLY STAGE BREAST CANCER ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY. Dr. Carlos Garbino

Supplementary Online Content

ESMO Breast Cancer Preceptorship Singapore November Special Issues in Treatment of Young Women with Breast Cancer

Oncotype DX testing in node-positive disease

Kathy Albain, MD. Chemotherapy in Luminal Breast Cancer: Who Benefits? Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine

Table S2. Expression of PRMT7 in clinical breast carcinoma samples

2014 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium Review

SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences

Prognostic and Predictive Factors

Morphological and Molecular Typing of breast Cancer

ADAPT. Adjuvant Dynamic marker- Adjusted Personalized Therapy trial optimizing risk assessment and therapy response prediction in early breast cancer

Overview of peculiarities and therapeutic options for patients with breast cancer and a BRCA germline mutation

The effect of delayed adjuvant chemotherapy on relapse of triplenegative

Page 1. AHN-JHU Breast Cancer Symposium. Novel Local Regional Clinical Trials. Background. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Benefit.

A Study on Importance of Molecular Subtyping As a Prognostic Indicator of Breast Carcinoma

Cover Page. The handle holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation

Ideal neo-adjuvant Chemotherapy in breast ca. Dr Khanyile Department of Medical Oncology, University of Pretoria

Breast Cancer: ASCO Poster Review

Early Stage Disease. Hope S. Rugo, MD Professor of Medicine Director Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Center

Basement membrane in lobule.

Lessons Learnt from Neoadjuvant Hormone Therapy. 10 Lessons Learnt from Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy. Lesson 1

Response of Triple Negative Breast Cancer to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Correlation between Ki-67 Expression and Pathological Response

Lessons Learnt from Neoadjuvant Hormone Therapy. Mike Dixon Clinical Director Breakthrough Research Unit Edinburgh

NeoadjuvantTreatment In BC When, How, Who?

Triple negative breast cancer Biology and targeted therapy

8/8/2011. PONDERing the Need to TAILOR Adjuvant Chemotherapy in ER+ Node Positive Breast Cancer. Overview

Considerations in Adjuvant Chemotherapy. Joyce O Shaughnessy, MD Baylor Sammons Cancer Center Texas Oncology US Oncology

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in young women with breast cancer. Hanne Melgaard Nielsen, MD Ph.D Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital

Time to Start Adjuvant Systemic Treatment in Breast Cancer; a Retrospective Cohort Study

Adjuvant chemotherapy in older breast cancer patients: how to decide?

Editorial Process: Submission:11/30/2017 Acceptance:01/04/2019

The Neoadjuvant Model as a Translational Tool for Drug and Biomarker Development in Breast Cancer

e-session 381 BCY3 - Highlights of the 3rd ESO-ESMO Breast Cancer in Young Women International Conference

Race is not a factor in overall survival in patients with triple negative breast cancer: a retrospective review

Extended Hormonal Therapy

Gene Signatures in Breast Cancer: Moving Beyond ER, PR, and HER2? Lisa A. Carey, M.D. University of North Carolina USA

Subtype-directed therapy of TNBC Global Breast Cancer Conference 2015 & 4th International Breast Cancer Symposium Jeju Island, Korea, April 2015

Breast Cancer. Dr. Andres Wiernik 2017

Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS)

Implications of ACOSOG Z11 for Clinical Practice: Surgical Perspective

New approaches in the neoadjuvant systemic therapy of breast cancer

Association of microrna-7 and its binding partner CDR1-AS with the prognosis and prediction of 1 st -line tamoxifen therapy in breast cancer

Triple Negative Breast cancer New treatment options arenowhere?

Breast cancer treatment

St Gallen 2017 controversies & consensus

Molecular in vitro diagnostic test for the quantitative detection of the mrna expression of ERBB2, ESR1, PGR and MKI67 in breast cancer tissue.

Advances in Breast Cancer Therapeutics in the Adjuvant and Metastatic Settings. Eve Rodler, MD University of California at Davis October 2016

Molecular in vitro diagnostic test for the quantitative detection of the mrna expression of ERBB2, ESR1, PGR and MKI67 in breast cancer tissue.

José Palacios Calvo Servicio de Anatomía Patológica

Immunotherapy in breast cancer. Carmen Criscitiello, MD, PhD European Institute of Oncology Milan, Italy

* * * * Supplementary Figure 1. DS Lv CK HSA CK HSA. CK Col-3. CK Col-3. See overleaf for figure legend. Cancer cells

Breast Cancer Statistics

Transcription:

SFSPM Novembre 217 Valeur prédictive et pronostique de l infiltrat immunitaire dans les cancers du sein traités par chimiothérapie néoadjuvante Dr Fabien REYAL Service de Chirurgie INSERM U932 Immunity and Cancer Institut Curie

Tumor infiltration in the neoadjuvant setting Role of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) High levels of TILs at diagnosis : better response to NAC Better prognosis (triple negative breast cancers (TNBC) and HER2-positive BC) TILs following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC)? Myashita Dieci Loi Hamy BC subtype TNBC TNBC TNBC HER2-pos Numbers n=131 n=278 n=111 n=175 Pairs pre & post n=78 n=19 n=39 n=175 Analysis in pcr patients No No No Yes 2

Tumor infiltration and response to treatment in breast cancer NEOREP cohort Institut Curie 22-211 n=718 Microbiopsy BEFORE Neoadjuvant chemotherapy DURING Surgery AFTER TIL baseline TILs dynamics TIL residual Identify patterns of immune infiltration related to response to treatment and prognosis

Patients characteristics NEOREP cohort n=718 Mean age : 48 y.o TNBC 44% Luminal 31% HER2 24% Median tumor size: 45mm Anthra taxanes (8.4%) N=718 BMI class BMI<19 41 (5.7) BMI: 19 to 25 414 (57.7) BMI: 25 to 3 166 (23.2) BMI>3 96 (13.4) Tumor size 45. (2.5) Tumor size T1 47 (6.5) T2 482 (67.1) T3 189 (26.3) Clinical node status N 282 (39.3) N1-N2-N3 435 (6.7) BC subtype Luminal 223 (31.1) TNBC 32 (44.6) HER2 175 (24.4) Histology Ductal carcinoma NST 661 (92.6) Other 53 (7.4) Grade Grade I-II 211 (3.1) Grade III 491 (69.9) NAC regimen Anthracyclines based regimens 61 (8.5) Anthracyclines-taxanes regimens 577 (8.4) Others 8 (11.1)

Microbiopsy before NAC TIL=2% Microbiopsy before NAC TIL>6% 5

Surgical Specimen after NAC TIL=2% Surgical Specimen after NAC TIL>6%6

Lymphocyte PBC before neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a rare entity Lymphocyte predominant breast cancer Cut-off stromal TILs : 5 or 6% luminal TNBC HER2.4.3.2 BC subtype luminal TNBC HER2.1. 25 5 75 25 5 75 25 5 75 Baseline TIL levels (%) Luminal 2% TN 18% HER2-positive 1%

Baseline TILs vary by BC subtype Baseline TILs are associated with agressive tumor characteristics A * B C * D * E * 75 75 75 75 75 BC subtype 5 25 Clinical tumor size 5 25 Grade 5 25 Pre NAC mitotic index 5 25 Invasive tumor cellularity 5 25 luminal TNBC HER2 T1 T2 T3 Grade I II Grade III <11 11 22 >22 <=6% > 6%

Response to treatment

luminal TNBC HER2 luminal TNBC HER2 Baseline TIL levels* are associated with pcr Pre NAC str TILs (%) 6 4 2 Pre NAC str TILs (%) 6 4 2 c Post NAC str TILs (%) 6 4 2 Pre NAC str TILs (%) 6 4 2 6 4 2 d Post NAC str TILs (%) 6 4 2 a b a b Pre NAC str TILs (%) 6 4 2 6 4 2 ** pcr No pcr 6 6 pcr No pc Luminal and TNBC and NOT in HER2+ BC Significant interaction by BC subtype (p=.4) 4 2 4 2 pcr No pcr

luminal TNBC HER2 luminal TNBC HER2 Baseline TIL levels* are associated with RCB a b c 6 6 a b 4 2 4 2 Pre NAC str TILs (%) 6 4 2 Pre NAC str TILs (%) 6 4 2 Pre NAC str TILs (%) 6 4 2 Pre NAC str TILs (%) 6 4 2 6 6 pcr RCB I RCB II RCB III 4 4 c d 2 2 6 In luminal and TNBC, NOT in HER2+ BC 6 11 pcr RCB I RCB II RCB III ) )

2 2nd tert 3rd tert % p 2 2 Baseline TILs levels are associated with pcr in luminal and TNBC not in HER2-positive BC luminal TNBC HER2 <6% =>6% % p luminal TNBC HER2 11 49% =>5% B 1 t rt t t % pcr 75 5 25 Str TILs (,1] (1,2] (2,3] (3,4] (4,5] (5,6] (6,7] (7,8] (8,9] luminal TNBC HER2 12

TILs dynamic

TILs levels decrease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy A Stromal TIL levels (%) 1 75 5 25 Pre All Post B 8 6 4 2 Luminal Pre Post C 1 75 5 25 TNBC Pre Post D 75 5 25 HER2 Pre Post

TILs dynamics is strongly correlated with baseline TILs levels TILs changes before and after NAC TILs changes before and after NAC, by baseline TILs (1% classes) 1 (,1] (1,2] (2,3] (3,4] (4,5] (5,6] (6,7] (7,8] (8,9] 75 5 25 Baseline TIL levels (by 1% increment) 15

irrespective of response to treatment No pcr pcr TILs variation (abs. val.) 5 5 (,1] (1,2] (2,3] (3,4] (4,5] (5,6] (6,7] (7,8] (8,9] Baseline TILs 16

A high decrease in stromal TIL levels is associated with pcr 5 Change in str TIL levels (abs val) 5 pcr pcr No pcr

High baseline TILs and high decrease of lymphocytes after NAC are associated with pcr Median Ly density Change Ly density 1 75 cancer value 1 5 25 75 stromal lymphocytes 18

Post-NAC stromal TILs

Lymphocyte-predominant breast Cancer is even rarer after NAC than before 1 luminal TNBC HER2 75.6 % cases 5 TILs levels (9,1] (8,9] (6,7] (5,6] (4,5] (3,4] (2,3] (1,2] (,1].4 25.2 TNBC luminal HER2. 25 5 75 1 25 5 75 1 25 5 75 1 Post NAC TILs (%) Luminal 1% TN 4% HER2-positive 1%

Post-NAC TILs are higher in tumors with residual disease than in pcr specimens 2 4 6 perc_stromal_lymphocyte2 Post NAC TILs (%) A 2 4 6 perc_stromal_lymphocyte2 Post NAC TILs (%) luminal TNBC HER2 B 2 4 6 pcr No pcr Post NAC TILs (%) C luminal TNBC HER2 pcr No pcr pcr No pcr pcr No pcr 2 4 6 Post NAC TILs (%) D

luminal TNBC HER2 luminal TNBC HER2 Pre 2 Pre 2 Higher post-nac TIL levels are associated with increasing RCB only in HER2-positive BC pcr RCB I RCB II RCB III a b c c d 6 6 4 4 Post NAC str TILs (%) 6 4 2 Post NAC str TILs (%) 6 4 2 luminal TNBC Post NAC str TILs (%) 2 6 4 2 Post NAC str TILs (%) 2 6 4 2 6 6 pcr RCB I RCB II RCB III NS HER2 4 2 (P interaction =.4) 4 2 22 pcr RCB I RCB II RCB III

Impact on prognosis 23

E TNBC F E TNBC Luminal F E Luminal HER2 F. < 2% => 2% TILS (cut off: 2%) + < 2% + => 2% p =.17 3 6 9 12 Time number at risk 128 69 36 7 191 98 41 14 3 6 9 12 2%) TILS + TILS (cut off: 3%) + < 3% < 2% p =.17 p =.3 + + => => 3% 2%.. 3 25 6 5 9 75 12 Time Time number at at risk risk < 3% < 2% 183149 93 125 49 63 11 17 => => 3% 2% 13674 74 64 28 35 1 11 3 25 6 5 9 75 12 2%) TILS + (cut off: TILS (cut off: 3%) < 3% + < 2% p =.79p =.39 + => 3% + => 2%.. 25 25 5 5 75 75 Time Time number number at risk at risk < 3% < 2% 189 71 159 54 82 23 23 6 => 3% => 2% 34 14 3 7 16 32 5 8 25 25 5 5 75 75 C TNBC D C TNBC Luminal D C Luminal HER2 D Disease free survival 1..75.5.25. < 4% => 4% + ++ +++ + +++ + + +++ ++ +++++ + +++++ + + +++ ++ + + ++++ ++ + ++ ++ +++ ++ +++ +++++ ++++ ++ + ++++++ + TILS (cut off: 4%) + < 4% + => 4% p =.1 3 6 9 12 Time number at risk 228 118 58 14 91 49 19 7 3 6 9 12 Disease free survival Disease free survival 1. 1..75.75.5.5.25.25.. ++ + +++ + +++ ++ ++ + ++++ + ++++ + + + +++++ + +++++ + + + + ++ + + +++ + ++ + + + + ++ ++ + + ++ ++++++++++ + + ++ + ++++++++ ++++ ++ +++++ +++++ ++++ ++ ++ + ++++++ + +++++ TILS TILS (cut off: 5%) 4%) + + < 5% < 4% + + => => 5% 4% p = 4e 4 3 25 6 5 9 75 12 Time Time number at at risk risk p =.4 < 5% < 4% 24924 127172 63 91 15 26 => => 5% 4% 7 19 4 17 14 7 6 2 3 25 6 5 9 75 12 + Disease free survival 1. 1..75.75 Disease free survival.5.5.25.25.. ++ + ++ + + + + + + + ++++ + + +++ + +++++++ ++ ++ ++++ ++ ++ + + + + ++++++++++++ ++ + + ++ ++++++++++++ + + ++ + + +++++++++++ + + ++++++++ TILS (cut off: TILS (cut off: 5%) 4%) + < 5% + < 4% + => 5% + => 4% ++ +++++ p =.23p =.8 25 25 5 5 75 75 Time Time number number at risk at risk < 5% < 4% 215 127 183 94 95 4 27 11 => 5% => 4% 8 48 6 3 3 15 1 3 25 25 5 5 75 75 +

Log relative Hazard < 2% Baseline stromal TIL levels are associated with DFS in TNBC => 2% number at risk 128 69 36 7 191 98 41 14 3 6 9 12 < 3% => 3% n C TNBC D 1. + ++ +++ + 1. + +++ + + +++ + + +++++ + +++++ + + +++ ++ +.75 + ++++.75 Disease free survival.5.25 ++ + ++ ++ +++ ++ +++ +++++ ++++ ++ + ++++++ + Disease free survival.5.25 TILS (cut off: 4%) + < 4% + => 4% p =.1.. Baseline str TILs 3 6 9 12 Time number at risk n < 4% => 4% 228 118 58 14 91 49 19 7 3 6 9 12 < 5% => 5%

HER2 luminal TNBC Log relative Hazard Baseline stromal TIL levels are associated with DFS in TNBC HER2 luminal B 1 Str TILs 1st quart 2nd quart 3rd quart 4th quart % pcr 75 5 25 Baseline str TILs luminal TNBC 26

Post-NAC TILs are NOT associated with DFS, but this effect differs by BC subtype - Significant interaction with BC subtype - Effect of post-nac TILs on DFS different in TNBC / HER2-positive (P interaction =.4) - Effect linear : cut-off unknown? Adverse impact of high post-nac TILs in RD in HER2-positive BC, but trend to protective effect in TNBC 27

Take home messages Confirmation association pre-nac TILs pcr Dynamics : The highest baseline TILs are, the highest their level decrease High TILs decrease correlates with pcr Different prognostic value pre and post-nac = > Complex interactions BC subtype and TILs TILs subsetting is pivotal to understand mechanisms of resistance to treatment Assessment pre NAC & post NAC should become routine practice 28

U932 Immunity and Cancer Anne-sophie Hamy-Petit Hélène Bonsang Kitzis Department of tumour biology Marick Laé Lucian Topiu Diane Decroze 29

Univariate Multivariate name levels OR 95%CI pval OR 95%CI p Age <45 y.o 1 45-55 y.o.97 [.66-1.42].877 >55 y.o 1.4 [.93-2.11].11 Menopausal status postmenopausal 1 premenopausal.8 [.57-1.12].193 BMI class BMI: 19 to 25 1 BMI<19.56 [.24-1.19].156 BMI: 25 to 3.76 [.5-1.14].186 BMI>3.9 [.55-1.47].69 Tumor size (2 cl) T1-T2 1 T3.8 [.54-1.16].245 Clinical nodal status N 1 N1-N2-N3.9 [.65-1.26].546 ER status ER negative 1 ER positive.2 [.13 -.29] <.1 PR status PR negative 1 PR positive.13 [.8 -.22] <.1 HER2 status HER2 negative 1 HER2 positive 1.94 [1.35-2.78] <.1 BC subtype TNBC 1 1 luminal.8 [.4 -.15] <.1.9 [.4 -.18 ] <.1 HER2 1.2 [.7-1.48].927 1.1 [.68-1.5 ].958 Histology ductal 1 other.82 [.41-1.52].543 Grade Grade I-II 1 Grade III 2.71 [1.8-4.16] <.1 ki67 ki67<2 1 ki67>=2 2.56 [1.5-7.23].51 NAC regimen Anthracyclines based regimens 1 Anthracyclines-taxanes regimens.98 [.55-1.8].936 Others 1.32 [.64-2.76].456 Pre-NAC mitotic index 3 Mitotic index <= 1 1 Mitotic index 11-22 1.38 [.86-2.25].187 Mitotic index >22 2.5 [1.34-3.19].1 Pre-NAC tumor cellularity (inv.) <= Pre-NAC tumor cellularity 6% 1 Pre-NAC tumor cellularity (inv.) > 6%.94 [.68-1.31].733 IS component (pre NAC) No pre-nac in situ component 1 Pre-NAC in situ component.83 [.51-1.3].417 Str TIL levels (continuous) 1.3 [1.2-1.4] <.1 1.3 [ 1.2-1.3 ] <.1 Multivariate analysis pcr Whole population Baseline TILs (continuous or cutoff 4%) BC subtype 3

TNBC Univariate Multiivariate TNBC Class HR CI p p HR CI p Pre-NAC parameters Age, years <45 1.78 45-55 1.2 [.63-1.67].93 >55.84 [.48-1.49].55 Menopause status Post 1.47 Pre 1.18 [.75-1.86].47 BMI class BMI < 25 1.25 BMI>= 25 1.29 [.83-1.98].26 Tumor size T1-T2 1 <.1 T3 1.66 [1.18-2.34] <.1 Clinical node status N 1.15 N1-N2-N3 1.38 [.89-2.15].15 Histology Ductal carcinoma NST 1.44 Other 1.34 [.64-2.77].44 Grade Grade I-II 1.6 Grade III 1.19 [.61-2.31].6 Ki 67 <2% 1.52 2% 1.32 [.56-3.14].52 Pre-NAC mitotic index <11 1.37 11-22 1.68 [.67-4.22].27 >22 1.81 [.78-4.2].17 Pre-NAC inv. tumor cellularity 6% 1.19 > 6%.74 [.47-1.17].19 Pre-NAC str TILs (cut-off 4%) < 4% 1 <.1 1 - - 4%.35 [.18 -.67] <.1.39 [.18 -.86 ].2 Post-NAC parameters pcr No pcr 1 <.1 pcr.22 [.12 -.41] <.1 RCB index pcr 1 <.1 RCB-I 1.39 [.39-4.92].61 1 - - RCB-II 3.52 [1.84-6.73] <.1 1.67 [.21-12.99 ].626 RCB-III 11.27 [5.7-22.26] <.1 6.18 [.79-48.9 ].82 Post-NAC Str TILS (cut-off 25%) str TILs 25% str TILs > 25% Post-NAC Mitotic index 1 1 <.1 1 - - 11-22 2.38 [.81-6.97].11 2.1 [.68-5.9 ].27 Multivariate analysis DFS TNBC Baseline TILs RCB Post-NAC mitotic index >22 4.89 [2.46-9.71] <.1 4.92 [ 2.41-1.5 ] <.1 Post-NAC inv. tumor cellularity 3% 1.7 > 3% 1.61 [.96-2.7].7 Post-NAC Str TILS (continuous).99 [.98-1.1].79

HER2 Univariate Multiivariate TNBC Class HR CI p p HR CI p Pre-NAC parameters Age, years <45 1.33 45-55 1.29 [.48-3.43].62 >55.42 [.9-1.97].27 Menopause status Post 1.38 Pre 1.58 [.56-4.44].38 BMI class BMI < 25 1 <.1 1 - - BMI>= 25 3.37 [1.33-8.57].1 4.83 [ 1.75-13.36 ].2 Tumor size T1-T2 1.15 T3 1.96 [.78-4.98].15 Clinical node status N 1.57 N1-N2-N3 1.35 [.48-3.8].57 ER status Negative 1.81 Positive 1.12 [.44-2.85].81 PR status Negative 1.74 Positive.84 [.29-2.41].74 Grade Grade I-II 1.1 1 - - Grade III.32 [.13 -.81].2.18 [.6 -.54 ].2 Pre-NAC mitotic index <11 1.63 11-22.72 [.25-2.6].54 >22.56 [.16-1.92].36 Pre-NAC inv. tumor cellularity 6% 1.7 > 6%.83 [.33-2.1].7 Pre-NAC str TILs (continuous).61 Pre-NAC str TILs (cut-off 4%) < 4% 1.8 4% 1.14 [.41-3.21].8 Post-NAC parameters pcr No pcr 1 <.1 pcr.9 [.1 -.7].2 RCB index pcr 1 <.1 RCB-I 3.29 [.21-52.63].4 RCB-II 11.1 [1.43-84.72].2 RCB-III 19.99 [2.23-178.86] <.1 Post-NAC Str TILS (cut-off 25%) str TILs 25% 1 <.1 1 - - Multivariate analysis DFS HER2 Post-NAC TILs Grade BMI str TILs > 25% 5.5 [1.66-15.36] <.1 9.61 [ 2.51-36.8 ].1 Post-NAC Mitotic index 1 1.3 11-22 1.6 [.2-12.66].66 >22 3.52 [1.31-9.47].1 Post-NAC inv. tumor cellularity 3% 1.13 > 3% 2.7 [.8-5.38].13 Post-NAC Str TILS (continuous) 1 <.1 32