↓ Skip to main content

Natural killer (NK) cell profiles in blood and tumour in women with large and locally advanced breast cancer (LLABC) and their contribution to a pathological complete response (PCR) in the tumour…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Natural killer (NK) cell profiles in blood and tumour in women with large and locally advanced breast cancer (LLABC) and their contribution to a pathological complete response (PCR) in the tumour following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC): differential restoration of blood profiles by NAC and surgery
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12967-015-0535-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chandan Verma, Viriya Kaewkangsadan, Jennifer M Eremin, Gerard P Cowley, Mohammad Ilyas, Mohamed A El-Sheemy, Oleg Eremin

Abstract

NK cells contribute to tumour surveillance, inhibition of growth and dissemination by cytotoxicity, secretion of cytokines and interaction with immune cells. Their precise role in human breast cancer is unclear and the effect of therapy poorly studied. The purpose of our study was to characterise NK cells in women with large (≥3 cm) and locally advanced (T3-4, N1-2, M0) breast cancers (LLABCs) undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and surgery, and to ascertain their possible contribution to a pathological complete response (pCR). Women with LLABCs (n = 25) and healthy female donors [HFDs (n = 10)] were studied. Pathological responses in the breast were assessed using established criteria. Blood samples were collected pre and post NAC and surgery. Flow cytometry and labelled monoclonal antibodies established absolute numbers (AbNs) and percentages (%) of NK cells, and expressing granzyme B/perforin and NKG2D. In vitro NK cytotoxicity was assessed and NK cells and cytokines (IL-2, INF-γ, TGF-β) documented in tumours using immunohistochemical techniques. Data was analysed by SPSS. Women with LLABCs had significantly reduced AbNs (160.00 ± 40.00 cells/µl) but not % of NK cells, compared with HFDs (NK: 266.78 ± 55.00 cells/µl; p = 0.020). NAC enhanced the AbN (p = 0.001) and % (p = 0.006) of NK cells in patients with good pathological responses. Granzyme B(+)/perforin(+) cells were significantly reduced (43.41 ± 4.00%), compared with HFDs (60.26 ± 7.00%; p = 0.003). NAC increased the % in good (p = 0.006) and poor (p = 0.005) pathological responders. Pretreatment NK cytotoxicity was significantly reduced in good (37.80 ± 8.05%) and poor (22.80 ± 7.97%) responders (p = 0.001) but remained unchanged following NAC. NK-NKG2D(+) cells were unaltered and unaffected by NAC; NKG2D expression was increased in patients with a pCR (p = 0.001). Surgery following NAC was not beneficial, except in those with a pCR. Tumour-infiltrating NK cells were infrequent but increased peritumourally (p = 0.005) showing a significant correlation (p = 0.004) between CD56(+) cells and grade of response. Tumour cytokines had no effect. Women with LLABCs have inhibited blood innate immunity, variably reversed by NAC (especially with tumour pCRs), which returned to pretreatment levels following surgery. These and in situ tumour findings suggest a role for NK cells in NAC-induced breast pCR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Professor 5 6%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 22 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 02 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,136,187
of 24,929,945 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#369
of 4,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,900
of 272,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#4
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,929,945 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 272,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.