Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 299, Issue 1, pp 239–246 | Cite as

A retrospective analysis of immunohistochemically determined IRF4 (interferon regulating factor 4) expression in a consecutive cohort of 114 ovarian cancer patients

  • Anne-Sophie HeimesEmail author
  • Marcus Schmidt
  • Joerg Jäkel
  • Katrin Almstedt
  • Susanne Gebhard
  • Veronika Weyer-Eiberich
  • Tania Elger
  • Slavomir Krajnak
  • Walburgis Brenner
  • Annette Hasenburg
  • Marco Johannes Battista
Gynecologic Oncology

Abstract

Background

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes influence the prognosis of solid tumors, including ovarian cancer (OC). The immunoregulatory transcription factor (IRF4) is mainly expressed in plasma cells and regulates immunoglobulin class switch recombination as well as plasma cell differentiation. Therefore, we analyzed the impact of IRF4 expression in a consecutive cohort of OC patients.

Methods

IRF4 expression was evaluated by immunostaining. Differences in IRF4 expression among the subgroups of the established clinical−pathological features like age, histological subtype, tumor stage, histological grading, postoperative tumor burden, and completeness of chemotherapy were determined by χ2 test. The impact of IRF4 expression on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was examined by univariate and multivariate Cox analysis adjusted for established clinical−pathological factors and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.

Results

114 patients entered this study. IRF4 was expressed in 51.7% of the entire cohort. 72.3% patients with high-grade serous OC showed IRF4 expression compared to 37.3% patients with a non-high-grade serous OC (p < 0.001). Univariate Cox-regression analysis revealed no prognostic impact of IRF4 expression in terms of PFS (p = 0.35) and OS (p = 0.98). Kaplan–Meier plots failed to show any prognostic impact for PFS (p = 0.35) and OS (p = 0.98), too. Established clinical–pathological factors retained their prognostic impact as tumor stage in terms of PFS (< 0.001) and as postoperative residual tumor burden (p = 0.04), tumor stage (< 0.001), histological grade (p = 0.02), and completeness of chemotherapy (p < 0.001) in terms of OS, respectively.

Conclusion

Immunohistochemically determined IRF4 expression correlated with high-grade serous OC. However, it failed to show any prognostic impact in this cohort of 114 patients.

Keywords

TILs Ovarian cancer IRF4 Antitumor immunity 

Notes

Author contributions

ASH: project development, data collection, immunostaining, statistical analysis, manuscript writing. MS: project development, manuscript editing, supervision. KA: data curation, support. JJ: evaluation of immunostaining, manuscript editing. SG: technical support, immunostaining. VWE: support statistical analysis. TE: methodology support. KK: formal analysis support. WB: protocol/project development, supervision. AH: project development, manuscript editing, supervision. MJB: data collection, protocol development, manuscript editing, supervision.

Funding

No funding was received.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Mainz, Germany. Informed consent was obtained from all the patients, and all the clinical investigations were conducted according to the ethical and legal standards, and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All the authors have approved the manuscript and agreed with the submission to Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

References

  1. 1.
    Santoiemma P et al (2015) Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in ovarian cancer. Cancer Biol Ther 16(6):807–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schumacher T et al (2015) Neoantigens in cancer immunotherapy. Science 348(6230):69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Milne K et al (2009) Systematic analysis of immune infiltrates in high-grade serous ovarian cancer reveals CD20, FoxP3 and TIA-1 as positive prognostic factors. PLoS One 4(7):e6412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stumpf M et al (2009) Intraepithelial CD8-positive T lymphocytes predict survival for patients with serous stage III ovarian carcinomas: relevance of clonal selection of T lymphocytes. Br J Cancer 101(9):1513–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Santoiemma P et al (2016) Systematic evaluation of multiple immune markers reveals prognostic factors in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 143(1):120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levanon K et al (2008) New insights into the pathogenesis of serous ovarian cancer and its clinical impact. J Clin Oncol 26(32):5284–5293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurman RJ et al (2013) Origin and molecular pathogenesis of ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. Ann Oncol 24(Suppl 10):16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lundgren S et al (2016) Prognostic impact of tumour-associated B cells and plasma cells in epithelial ovarian cancer. J Ovarian Res 9:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fremd C et al (2013) B cell-regulated immune responses in tumor models and cancer patients. Oncoimmunology 2(7):e25443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmidt M et al (2012) A comprehensive analysis of human gene expression profiles identifies stromal immunoglobulin kappa C as a compatible prognostic marker in human solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 18(9):2695–2703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heimes AS et al (2017) Prognostic significance of IRF4 in node-negative breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143:1123.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-017-2377-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shaffer AL et al (2009) IRF4: immunity. Malignancy! Therapy? Clin Cancer Res 15(9):2954–2961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang CC et al (2002) IRF4 correlates with clinical outcome in patients with B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 2002(100):4671–4675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Battista MJ et al (2016) c-met is overexpressed in type I ovarian cancer: results of an investigative analysis in a cohort of consecutive ovarian cancer patients. Oncol Lett 12(3):2001–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kurman RJ et al (2011) Molecular pathogenesis and extraovarian origin of epithelial ovarian cancer—shifting the paradigm. Hum Pathol 42(7):918–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salgado R et al (2015) The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an International TILs Working Group 2014. Ann Oncol 26(2):259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ahmed AA et al (2010) Driver mutations in TP53 are ubiquitous in high grade serous carcinoma of the ovary. J Pathol 221(1):49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Landen CN et al (2008) Early events in the pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(6):995–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Al Chapoval et al (1998) Combination chemotherapy and IL-15 administration induce permanent tumor regression in a mouse lung tumor model: NK and T cell-mediated effects antagonized by B cells. J Immunol 161(12):6977–6984Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielsen JS et al (2012) CD20 + tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes have an atypical CD27-memory phenotype and together with CD8 + T cells promote favorable prognosis in ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 18(12):3281–3292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Linnebacher M et al (2013) Tumor-infiltrating B cells come into vogue. World J Gastroenterol 19(1):8–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kroeger DR et al (2016) Tumor-infiltrating plasma cells are associated with tertiary lymphoid structures, cytolytic T-cell responses, and superior prognosis in ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 22(12):3005–3015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iglesia MD et al (2014) Prognostic B-cell signatures using mRNA-seq in patients with subtype-specific breast and ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 20(14):3818–3829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Montfort A et al (2017) A strong B-cell response is part of the immune landscape in human high-grade serous ovarian metastases. Clin Cancer Res 23(1):250–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Sophie Heimes
    • 1
    Email author return OK on get
  • Marcus Schmidt
    • 1
  • Joerg Jäkel
    • 2
  • Katrin Almstedt
    • 1
  • Susanne Gebhard
    • 1
  • Veronika Weyer-Eiberich
    • 3
  • Tania Elger
    • 1
  • Slavomir Krajnak
    • 1
  • Walburgis Brenner
    • 1
  • Annette Hasenburg
    • 1
  • Marco Johannes Battista
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Medical CenterMainzGermany
  2. 2.Institute of PathologyUniversity Medical CenterMainzGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI)University Medical CenterMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations