Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Oncology
Volume 2019, Article ID 4325105, 14 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4325105
Review Article

DNA Repair Deficiency in Breast Cancer: Opportunities for Immunotherapy

1Queen’s University Belfast, Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7AE, UK
2Almac Diagnostics, 20 Seagoe Road, Craigavon BT63 5QD, UK

Correspondence should be addressed to Eileen E. Parkes; ku.ca.buq@sekrap.e

Received 22 February 2019; Revised 4 May 2019; Accepted 29 May 2019; Published 19 June 2019

Guest Editor: Zhihua Kang

Copyright © 2019 Elaine Gilmore et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Historically the development of anticancer treatments has been focused on their effect on tumor cells alone. However, newer treatments have shifted attention to targets on immune cells, resulting in dramatic responses. The effect of DNA repair deficiency on the microenvironment remains an area of key interest. Moreover, established therapies such as DNA damaging treatments such as chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors further modify the tumor microenvironment. Here we describe DNA repair pathways in breast cancer and activation of innate immune pathways in DNA repair deficiency, in particular, the STING (STimulator of INterferon Genes) pathway. Breast tumors with DNA repair deficiency are associated with upregulation of immune checkpoints including PD-L1 (Programmed Death Ligand-1) and may represent a target population for single agent or combination immunotherapy treatment.

1. Introduction

Each individual cell endures hundreds of thousands of insults to its DNA each day [1]. Genomic instability is a pervasive feature associated with tumor cells and is the result of an accumulation of DNA damage within a cell [2]. Damage to DNA is triggered by many factors such as the generation of reactive oxidative species during metabolism (endogenous damage) and exposure to harmful environmental stimuli such as cigarette smoke or chemotherapy (exogenous damage) [3]. Efficient DNA damage responses such as cell cycle arrest and repair are therefore essential in order to maintain genomic integrity and stability [2].

DNA repair deficiency, in particular defects affecting the homologous recombination and Fanconi Anemia/BRCA repair pathway, is estimated to occur in 25% of breast cancers [4]. Notably, an estimated 60–69% of triple negative breast cancers (with absence of oestrogen receptor (ER) progesterone receptor (PR) as well as nonamplified HER2) are reported to have a defect in DNA repair, with features in common with BRCA1/2 mutated tumors described as “BRCAness” [5, 6].

Although loss of DNA repair pathways can result in tumor development, they can be exploited using targeted therapies. Moreover, the interaction of DNA damage with immune system activation and evasion provides novel therapeutic opportunities.

The roles of the host immune system and tumor microenvironment are now recognised as being crucial to the response to anticancer therapy [7]. The presence of infiltrating lymphocytes has been associated with improved outcomes in breast, ovarian, lung, colorectal and oropharyngeal cancers, and melanoma [811]. Notably triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been correlated with higher levels of lymphocytic infiltration compared to other subtypes of breast cancer [12]. Expression of the immune checkpoint Programmed cell Death Ligand-1 (PD-L1) is also increased in TNBC compared to non-TNBC [13].

The IMpassion130 study of the PD-L1 targeting antibody atezolizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival in PD-L1 positive TNBC (22.0 vs 15.5 months) indicating the potential clinical impact of exploiting immunotherapies in this subgroup of breast cancer [14]. However, responses to immunotherapy are not restricted to TNBC, with responses observed in the neoadjuvant setting in both TNBC and hormone-receptor positive breast cancer [15], and in PD-L1 positive trastuzumab-resistant HER2 positive breast cancer [16].

A deeper understanding of the interconnectivity between DNA repair deficiency and immune response will enable rational trial design of single agent and combination immune checkpoint targeting therapies. Here we discuss how tumor cell intrinsic immune responses to loss of DNA repair result in modification of the tumor microenvironment and are associated with lymphocytic infiltration. In addition, chronic stimulation of immune pathways as a result of DNA repair deficiency favours an immunosuppressive microenvironment, with immune checkpoint upregulation, and may predict response to immune checkpoint blockade.

2. DNA Damage Repair Pathways

A series of interconnecting pathways exist within cells which function to repair DNA damage [17]. Although the DNA damage response is composed of different repair mechanisms which target distinct types of damage, they all encompass similar coordinated processes to detect DNA damage, recruit repair factors at the site, and then physically repair the damaged DNA [17].

In cancer cells, DNA repair mechanisms can be dysfunctional which leaves cells dependent on remaining pathways and therefore particularly vulnerable to therapies which target these specific pathways (Table 1) [18].

Table 1: DNA repair pathways mutated in breast cancer and potential therapeutic interventions.
2.1. Base Excision Repair

Subtle changes to DNA such as single-strand breaks (SSBs) are repaired via the base excision repair (BER) mechanism [19]. This method of repair involves the removal of damaged bases form the double helix and the excision of the damaged section from the DNA structure [19]. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in members of the base excision repair pathway, XRCC1 and APE1, have been reported as contributing to increased risk of breast cancer, although population studies have not yielded consistent results [20, 21].

2.2. Nucleotide Excision Repair

Nucleotide excision repair (NER) is the mechanism responsible for the repair of single-strand lesions which cause a structural distortion within the DNA double helix [22]. Nucleotides surrounding the damaged site are excised and replaced by DNA replication machinery [17]. Defects in NER have been identified in early stage breast cancer and also reported to contribute to increased breast cancer risk women with exposure to cigarette smoke [23, 24].

2.3. Mismatch Repair

During replication, base mismatches can occur which distort the helical DNA structure [25]. These distortions are recognised by DNA damage response machinery which initiates the excision of the mismatched DNA, and the damaged site is then replaced with newly synthesised DNA [25]. Defects in mismatch repair (MMR) machinery are rarely seen in breast cancer, affecting 0.8–1.7% of women with breast cancer [26, 27] whereas MMR defects are seen in 15% of sporadic colorectal cancers [28]. There is now a known association between mismatch repair mutation and microsatellite instability with response to immune checkpoint therapies such as anti-PD-1; therefore identifying these women may be of clinical importance [29].

2.4. Nonhomologous End Joining

The repair mechanism nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) is a simpler pathway which functions throughout the cell cycle to repair DSBs [30]. Repair is mediated by ligating the ends of the broken DNA strands together and therefore is prone to high rates of DNA deletion and mutation [17]. Two distinct NHEJ pathways are identified: classical and alternative NHEJ. Alternative NHEJ is a less-well-defined process which has been shown to have a higher probability of causing translocations and large deletions [31]. When faithful repair, via homologous recombination, is lost by mutation or epigenetic alterations to this pathway, repair of double-strand breaks is performed by NHEJ [32].

2.5. Homologous Recombination

Homologous recombination (HR) is one of the repair pathways responsible for the detection and repair of double-strand breaks (DSBs) [33, 34]. This mechanism of repair is often described as conservative as the original DNA sequence is restored at the damaged lesion [35]. The process of HR is largely restricted to the S and G2 phase of the cell cycle [36]. Nucleotides are excised both upstream and downstream of the damaged site and new DNA is synthesised using the homologous sister chromatid as a template [37]. HR defects occur in between 25 and 40% of breast cancers, from both germline and somatic mutations of key components of the HR pathway such as BRCA1/BRCA2 [4, 6].

2.6. Fanconi Anemia/BRCA Pathway Loss

The Fanconi Anemia (FA)/BRCA pathway is a complex mechanism that involves the function of 19 genes and reestablishes DNA replication following DNA damage through the coordination of NER, translesional synthesis, and HR [38]. The FA/BRCA pathway is lost in approximately 25% of breast cancers due to mutation or silencing of one of constituent genes [4].

BRCA1 was the first identified breast cancer susceptibility gene [39, 40] and is currently the newest member of the FA family. Biallelic mutations in BRCA1 (typically embryonically lethal) were identified in a patient with early onset ovarian cancer with hypersensitivity to platinum based treatment and therefore deemed a new subtype of Fanconi Anemia (FANCS) [41]. BRCA2 (FANCD1) was identified as a FA family member in 2002, following sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in cells from patients with FANCB and FANCD1 [42]. Mutations in other FA family members have been demonstrated to predispose to breast cancer, including PALB2 (FANCN), BRIP1 (FANCJ), RAD51C (FANCO), SLX4 (FANCP), and FANCM [4350]. In summary, of the identified genes predisposing to hereditary breast cancer, the majority are FA family members.

2.7. Somatic Mutations of DNA Repair Genes in Breast Cancer

While BRCA1 and BRCA2 are highly penetrant germline cancer predisposition genes, associated with familial breast cancers, somatic alterations also affect these genes [7881]. Somatic mutations of the FA pathway also occur frequently in cancer and have been reported in 11.2% of breast cancers [82]. Promoter hypermethylation of BRCA1 has been reported in 13% of sporadic breast tumors [83], with promoter hypermethylation of FANCC (PALB2), FANCO (RAD51C), and FANCF also reported [8486]. Collectively, somatic and germline mutations and alternations of BRCA and related HR genes result in a phenotype termed “BRCAness” [87]. However, there may be significant clinical variation in how germline vs somatic mutations and alterations behave in response to therapy, exemplified by improved response to carboplatin vs docetaxel observed in patients with germline BRCA1 mutations but not in those with BRCA1 methylation or low mRNA expression [55]. However, while novel methods may allow variants of unknown significance and novel mutations of unknown pathogenic impact to be more clearly classified [88], taking this phenotypic approach to classification of BRCA-mutant-like HR-deficient cancers allows for clinical trial design targeting this subgroup of breast cancer.

2.8. Transcriptomic Identification of DNA Repair Deficiency

Tumors with loss of the FA/BRCA DNA repair pathway are sensitive to DNA damaging agents that cross-link DNA and stall DNA replication such as alkylating agents and anthracyclines. We previously identified a gene expression signature assay capable of prospectively identifying this distinct molecular subgroup of breast cancer patients with loss of the FA/BRCA pathway who benefited from chemotherapy [89]. Importantly, characterisation of the genes activated by loss of the FA/BRCA pathway revealed interferon-type immune gene signalling [90].

Consistent with this observation, both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutant breast cancers are known to be associated with lymphocytic infiltration [91, 92]. Cell line modelling demonstrates that loss of BRCA1/2 results in upregulation of interferon related genes [93, 94]. Importantly the CXCL10/CXCR3 axis is activated in BRCA-mutant breast cancer and has been implicated in breast cancer progression and metastasis in both in vivo and clinical studies [95, 96].

3. Immune Response in Breast Cancer

A number of clinical trials have reported a favourable predictive and prognostic value of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in different pathological subtypes of breast cancer [9, 97, 98]. Lymphocytic infiltration is particularly recognised in tumors associated with genomic instability, such as those with a BRCA1 mutation [4, 91]. Increasing presence of TILs has been correlated with improved recurrence free survival following chemotherapeutic treatment of triple negative and HER2+ breast cancers [99]. In TNBC, a phase III clinical trial reported that each consecutive 10% increase in intratumoral and stromal TILs resulted in 15% reduced risk of recurrence and 17% reduced risk of cancer related death, irrespective of the type of chemotherapy administered [100]. However, in the same study increased TILs were predictive of poorer outcome in ER positive HER2 negative breast cancer. Notably, high FoxP3+ T-regulatory cells () have been associated with poorer outcomes in ER positive disease, yet improved outcomes in ER negative breast cancer [101, 102]. Examining lymphocytic infiltration as a whole may overlook the subtle effects of the different populations of lymphocytes present in the tumor and stroma.

Whereas BRCA1/2 mutant breast tumors have been recognised to be associated with increased lymphocytic infiltrate [87], early data suggests that loss of other DNA repair response proteins (for example, ATM) results in a markedly altered immune response and tumor microenvironment, with low levels of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes [103]. The evolution of the term “BRCAness” to describe a BRCA-mutant phenotype in tumors without BRCA1/2 mutations has enabled classification of this important subgroup of breast cancer but may overlook subtle differences in immune responses that may vary depending on specific “BRCAness” associated alterations. For example, although it is known that loss of heterozygosity may have a greater influence on tumor behavior than biallelic alterations resulting from two somatic events [88], the exact impact biallelic vs monoallelic alterations of HR-related genes may have on immune activation and response to immune blockade is unknown.

Despite the T-cell immune infiltration commonly present in BRCA-mutant and DNA damage response deficient breast cancers, tumor growth and invasion continue. Therefore DNA repair deficient tumors develop mechanisms of bypassing the antitumorigenic immune response, thriving in an inflamed microenvironment. The chronic inflammation mediated by DNA repair deficiency within the tumor microenvironment promotes cellular proliferation and invasion and, in addition, dysregulated pathways of immune equilibrium, thereby promoting immunosuppression [104106].

3.1. STING Activation in DNA Damage Response Deficiency

Defects in DNA repair genes including BRCA1 and ATM have been shown to result in constitutive activation of the STimulator of INterferon Genes (STING) pathway in response to accumulation of cytosolic DNA [90, 107, 108]. Failed DNA repair results in the formation of micronuclei, within which cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS) colocalises with damaged DNA [109, 110]. Ruptured micronuclei result in activation of cGAS with subsequent synthesis of 2’3’-cGAMP which potently activates the STING pathway [111, 112]. Downstream activation of TANK-binding kinase 1 (TBK1) and interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) then occurs, as well as canonical and noncanonical NFκB pathways, resulting in upregulation of interferon stimulated genes [113, 114]. Interestingly, as well as activation of the STING pathway in DNA repair deficient cells, DNA damaging chemotherapies (including irinotecan, doxorubicin, and etoposide) and radiotherapy have similarly been demonstrated to activate the cGAS-STING immune response pathway [115117].

STING agonists are now in early phase clinical trials in combination with immune checkpoint therapies based on their ability to induce immune responses in solid tumors [118, 119]. Activation of the cytosolic RNA-sensing RIG-I pathway has also been identified in breast cancer treated with doxorubicin [120], and similarly to STING agonists, RIG-I agonists are also in clinical development, with immunostimulatory effects on the tumor microenvironment and tumor clearance in murine models [121].

STING agonists cause upregulation of immune checkpoints including PD-L1 in the microenvironment [122], and upregulation of PD-L1 in response to DNA damage has been shown to be dependent on STING [90, 123]. PD-L1 expressing tumors (with PD-L1 identified on infiltrating immune cells ± epithelial cells) are more likely to respond to targeted immune therapies.

However, STING activation following radiotherapy has been shown to drive infiltration of immunosuppressive myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) [124]. In breast cancer, infiltration of MDSCs has been reported to promote progression and metastasis and may mediate resistance to immunotherapies [125]. Whether infiltration of these immunosuppressive cells is mediated by STING activation in breast cancer remains unclear. STING pathway activation may therefore have dichotomous effects on the tumor microenvironment. While STING activation in the acute phase is typically recognised to have an antitumorigenic immunogenic effect, chronic cGAS-STING activation may in fact result in an immunosuppressive microenvironment, activating the senescence associated secretory phenotype [126128] and upregulation of immune checkpoints [90]. Moreover, chronic activation of cGAS-STING in chromosomally unstable tumors has been shown to result in STING-dependent metastasis [129]. The potential role of the STING pathway in the tumor immune microenvironment is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: STING pathway activation in DNA repair deficient breast cancer. Stalled replication forks or damaged DNA as a result of mutations in Fanconi Anemia/BRCA repair pathway genes results in cytosolic DNA, detected by cGAS. 2’3’-cGAMP is produced, which then activates STING. STING dimerises or oligomerises, and TBK1 and IRF3 are phosphorylated. IRF3 then translocates to the nucleus resulting in the expression of immune genes including CXCL10 and CCL5. Note: other downstream activators of the STING pathway, notably TRAF6 and NFκB, are not shown in this instance. CXCL10 and CCL5 are implicated in chemoattraction of CD8+ and CD4+ T-cells. However the tumor microenvironment may also contain immunosuppressive FoxP3+ CD4+ cells which express CTLA4, PD-1, PD-L1, LAG3, and TIM3; tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) which express PD-1, PD-L1, CD80 and CD86, LAG3, and TIM3. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) may express CTLA4, PD-1, TIM3, and LAG3. Therefore, DNA repair deficiency results in activation of the cGAS-STING pathway which has both antitumorigenic and protumorigenic effects within the tumor microenvironment.
3.2. Immune Checkpoints in Breast Cancer

Immune checkpoints are a number of inhibitory pathways within the immune system responsible for maintaining self-tolerance and modulation of the immune response [130]. Studies have reported that tumors are able to select particular immune checkpoint pathways to evade the immune system, particularly T-cells which target tumor antigens. This results in immune checkpoint proteins being frequently dysregulated in cancer [131].

When an antigen is recognised by the T-cell receptor, an immune response is initiated and then regulated by immune checkpoints via inhibitory and costimulatory signals [132]. Costimulatory receptor agonists or antagonists of inhibitory signals augment antigen-specific T-cell responses [133].

Although other forms of immunotherapy are also used in the clinical setting, the use of immune checkpoint targeted therapies has undoubtedly been remarkably successful, unleashing the potential of the antitumor immune response and revolutionising the management of human cancers [134]. Targeting the PD-1/L1 axis has been most fruitful in clinical trials, with many ongoing combination studies now using PD-1/L1 as a backbone of therapy (Table 2).

Table 2: Current and completed clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibition in breast cancer.
3.3. PD-1 and Ligands PD-L1/PD-L2

PD-1 is a transmembrane inhibitory coreceptor. Expression of PD-1 on T-cells and PD-L1 ligand interaction has been shown to have immunosuppressive functions in the tumor microenvironment [135]. PD-L2 expression is much more restricted than PD-L1 and so is mainly found on the surface of Antigen Presenting Cells (APCs) associated with its role in regulating the priming of T-cells [136].

PD-L1 expression is reported to be upregulated across a range of cancer types including breast, gastric, and lung cancers, although the significance of PD-L1 on prognosis and outcome remains uncertain in breast cancer [137, 138]. In the tumor microenvironment, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction results in T-cell death and inhibition of cytotoxic T-cell function [139]. Additionally, immunosuppressive Interleukin-10 (IL-10) production is stimulated [140]. Furthermore, PD-L1 expression enhances the conversion of helper T-cells (1) into immunosuppressive [141, 142]. Inhibiting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway using PD-1 or PD-L1 targeting antibodies restores lymphocyte function and therefore cytotoxicity [143].

PD-L1 has been reported to be expressed epithelial cells in 20% of triple negative breast cancers [13] and has been proposed as a biomarker of response to immunotherapy. However the failure to respond in PD-L1 positive breast tumors (in up to 75% depending on the treatment setting) and the observed response in some PD-L1 low or negative tumors indicate that other markers of response need to be identified [134, 144]. The most promising of these in solid tumors has been the presence of microsatellite instability, leading to approval of immune checkpoint therapy in all advanced solid tumors with mismatch repair defects [145]. However, as discussed above, the incidence of these defects in breast cancer is low. Similarly tumor mutational burden (TMB) is a promising biomarker in other solid tumors, but most breast cancers do not typically demonstrate increased TMB [146].

Increased PD-L1 expression is identified in breast tumors deficient in DNA repair, and infiltrating immune-cell PD-1 and PD-L1 expression is higher in breast cancers with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations [90, 147]. Treatment with the DNA damaging agent doxorubicin results in increased expression of PD-L1 on breast cancer cells [148]. Interestingly, STING agonists given in combination with anti-PD-1 treatment result in improved responses in preclinical models [122].

Therefore, a close relationship is observed between DNA repair deficiency and upregulation of PD-L1 expression. Breast cancers with DNA repair deficiency, or BRCAness, may benefit from single agent immunotherapy targeting this pathway. However, independent of BRCAness, treatment of breast cancers with DNA damaging agents in combination with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 targeted therapy may result in enhanced tumor responses.

4. Immunotherapy in Breast Cancer

In metastatic TNBC, the combination of PD-L1 targeting atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel resulted in a median 9.5-month improvement in overall survival (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45–0.86) in patients with PD-L1 positive immune infiltration [14]. In early stage breast cancer, neoadjuvant treatment of TNBC with anti-PD-1 in combination with chemotherapy resulted in an increase in pathological complete response (pCR) rates of 40% above expected [15]. These promising results indicate the potential of immunotherapy in breast cancer, although single agent anti-PD-1 treatment in the metastatic setting has not demonstrated a similar magnitude, with response rates of less than 20% in unselected advanced triple negative breast cancer, supporting combination approaches in future clinical trials [149].

Over 50 immune checkpoint therapy single agent and combination trials are ongoing in breast cancer, summarised in Table 2. The rate of translating these promising preclinical findings into the clinic is highly commendable and offers many patients a much-needed treatment option. However, the lack of an effective biomarker to select patients for immune checkpoint therapy exposes many patients who may derive no benefit from treatment to the risk of potentially serious immune mediated side effects, such as colitis, pneumonitis, liver toxicity, and durable endocrine effects including hypophysitis [150].

4.1. PARP Inhibitor and Immunotherapy Combinations in Breast Cancer

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (inhibiting PARP1, involved in base excision repair) initially demonstrated efficacy in potentiating the effects of DNA damagers such as temozolomide [151]. Subsequently treatment with PARP inhibitors was found to result in synthetic lethality in BRCA1/2 mutant tumors [152, 153] and the PARP inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib are now FDA-approved as monotherapy treatments in BRCA1/2 mutant advanced breast cancer [154, 155].

As discussed above, the immune microenvironment of DNA repair deficient tumors is typically immunosuppressive with an exhausted T-cell infiltrate expressing high levels of checkpoints. However, as described by Yap and colleagues, the targeted cell death caused by PARP inhibitors has the potential to “reset” the tumor microenvironment and polarise the immune response towards a antitumorigenic profile, resulting in a shift from immune escape to elimination of the tumor [156]. Therefore PARP inhibitors represent a promising combination therapy with immune checkpoint targeting therapies.

PARP inhibitors have now been demonstrated in a number of preclinical studies to activate the innate immune cGAS-STING pathway [157160]. These studies have further elucidated the mechanism of action of PARP inhibitors beyond synthetic lethality. Strikingly, treatment in vivo with the PARP inhibitor talazoparib in immunocompromised compared to immunocompetent models results in diminished responses [157]. Moreover, STING-dependent infiltration of CD8+ T-cells was demonstrated to be required for response to the PARP inhibitor olaparib [160]. These preclinical studies build a strong case for PARP inhibitor–immune checkpoint combination studies and the crucial role of the STING pathway in mediating immune responses. Interestingly these studies demonstrate a PARP inhibitor driven immune response in both HR-deficient and -proficient models [157, 160], supporting the rationale for PARP-immune checkpoint combinations beyond BRCA-mutant or HR-deficient disease.

In breast cancer, the combination of olaparib and durvalumab resulted in an overall response rate of 63% (95% CI 44–80%) at 28 weeks in 30 patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations [161]. These promising results have led to the expansion of this study beyond germline BRCA-mutant disease to encompass homologous recombination deficient cancers [70]. In advanced TNBC the combination of niraparib and pembrolizumab demonstrated clinical benefit in 20 out of 46 patients, notably including 4 patients with no identified HR defect or detectable PD-L1 expression [162]. While it is likely that the dual combination of PARP inhibition and immune checkpoint blockade results in most marked responses in DNA repair deficient cancers, the addition of a third immune-stimulating or targeted agent may enhance responses in repair competent tumors. For example, the addition of antiangiogenic therapy may further stimulate an antitumorigenic immune response by inhibiting immunosuppressive effects of VEGF-A, which promotes infiltration of MDSCs and and prevents dendritic cell maturation [163]. A number of triplet combination studies, including PARPi, antiangiogenic and immune checkpoint blockade, are ongoing (Table 2).

5. Conclusions

It is clear that the immune system plays a significant role in tumor development, progression, and also response to therapy. Immune checkpoints are implicated in the process of immunosuppression and therefore represent ideal targets for therapeutic manipulation to encourage an antitumor immune response. As outlined here and elsewhere, there is a strong argument for the immune response to genomic instability as an independent biomarker in identifying candidates for immune targeting treatments [164].

DNA repair deficient breast cancer, identified using genomic or transcriptomic biomarkers of DNA repair, is associated with upregulation of immune checkpoints and an immune-cell infiltrated microenvironment. While activation of immune pathways such as STING in the acute phase promotes an antitumorigenic response, in the chronic phase DNA damage repair deficient tumors instead exploit this STING-mediated immune response, tailoring this to promote a proinvasive microenvironment favouring tumor growth. Moreover, this immune microenvironment can be further hijacked by chronic stimulation of pathways such as the senescence associated secretory phenotype, again favouring immunosuppression and immune escape [165].

As the immune microenvironment of chronically inflamed DNA repair deficient cancer consists of both antitumorigenic and immunosuppressive cell populations, therapies which therefore enhance the antitumor immune infiltration and activation, in combination with immune checkpoint therapies, represent a promising treatment strategy.

Conflicts of Interest

Richard D. Kennedy and Nuala McCabe are employees of Almac Diagnostics.

Authors’ Contributions

Eileen E. Parkes, Richard D. Kennedy, and Nuala McCabe were responsible for conceptualization; Elaine Gilmore, Nuala McCabe, Richard D. Kennedy, and Eileen E. Parkes wrote and prepared the original draft; Eileen E. Parkes, Richard D. Kennedy, Nuala McCabe, and Elaine Gilmore wrote, reviewed, and edited the manuscript; Eileen E. Parkes and Richard D. Kennedy were responsible for visualization; Eileen E. Parkes, Richard D. Kennedy, and Nuala McCabe supervised the work.

Acknowledgments

Eileen E. Parkes is supported by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

References

  1. S. P. Jackson and J. Bartek, “The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease,” Nature, vol. 461, no. 7267, pp. 1071–1078, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. S. Negrini, V. G. Gorgoulis, and T. D. Halazonetis, “Genomic instability—an evolving hallmark of cancer,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 220–228, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. A. Tubbs and A. Nussenzweig, “Endogenous DNA damage as a source of genomic instability in cancer,” Cell, vol. 168, no. 4, pp. 644–656, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  4. N. Turner, A. Tutt, and A. Ashworth, “Hallmarks of “BRCAness” in sporadic cancers,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 814–819, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. E. H. Lips, L. Mulder, J. Hannemann et al., “Indicators of homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer and association with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 870–876, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. S. Akashi-Tanaka, C. Watanabe, T. Takamaru et al., “BRCAness predicts resistance to taxane-containing regimens in triple negative breast cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Clinical Breast Cancer, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 80–85, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. D. Hanahan and R. A. Weinberg, “Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation,” Cell, vol. 144, no. 5, pp. 646–674, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. M. Bremnes, L. Busund, T. L. Kilvær et al., “The role of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in development, progression, and prognosis of non–small cell lung cancer,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 789–800, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. S. J. Luen, R. Salgado, S. Fox et al., “Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer treated with pertuzumab or placebo in addition to trastuzumab and docetaxel: a retrospective analysis of the CLEOPATRA study,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 52–62, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. J. R. Webb, K. Milne, P. Watson, R. J. deLeeuw, and B. H. Nelson, “Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes expressing the tissue resident memory marker CD103 are associated with increased survival in high-grade serous ovarian cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 434–444, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. M. J. Ward, S. M. Thirdborough, T. Mellows et al., “Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes predict for outcome in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 489–500, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. S. Loi, S. Michiels, R. Salgado et al., “Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes are prognostic in triple negative breast cancer and predictive for trastuzumab benefit in early breast cancer: results from the FinHER trial,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1544–1550, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. E. A. Mittendorf, A. V. Philips, F. Meric-Bernstam et al., “PD-L1 expression in triple-negative breast cancer,” Cancer Immunology Research, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 361–370, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. P. Schmid, S. Adams, H. S. Rugo et al., “Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 379, no. 22, pp. 2108–2121, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  15. R. Nanda, M. C. Liu, C. Yau et al., “Pembrolizumab plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer (BC): Results from I-SPY 2,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 35, article no 506, Supplement 15, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  16. S. Loi, A. Giobbie-Hurder, A. Gombos et al., “Pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab in trastuzumab-resistant, advanced, HER2-positive breast cancer (PANACEA): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 1b–2 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 371–382, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  17. C. J. Lord and A. Ashworth, “The DNA damage response and cancer therapy,” Nature, vol. 481, no. 7381, pp. 287–294, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. M. J. O'Connor, “Targeting the DNA damage response in cancer,” Molecular Cell, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 547–560, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. M. L. Hegde, T. K. Hazra, and S. Mitra, “Early steps in the DNA base excision/single-strand interruption repair pathway in mammalian cells,” Cell Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 27–47, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. M. Cuchra, B. Mucha, L. Markiewicz et al., “The role of base excision repair in pathogenesis of breast cancer in the Polish population,” Molecular Carcinogenesis, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 1899–1914, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. C. Patrono, “Polymorphisms in base excision repair genes: Breast cancer risk and individual radiosensitivity,” World Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 874–882, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. E. C. Friedberg, “How nucleotide excision repair protects against cancer,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. J. J. Latimer, J. M. Johnson, C. M. Kelly et al., “Nucleotide excision repair deficiency is intrinsic in sporadic stage i breast cancer,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 50, pp. 21725–21730, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. L. E. Mechanic, R. C. Millikan, J. Player et al., “Polymorphisms in nucleotide excision repair genes, smoking and breast cancer in African Americans and whites: a population-based case–control study,” Carcinogenesis, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1377–1385, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. G. M. Li, “Mechanisms and functions of DNA mismatch repair,” Cell Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 85–98, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. H. Davies, S. Morganella, C. A. Purdie et al., “Whole-genome sequencing reveals breast cancers with mismatch repair deficiency,” Cancer Research, vol. 77, no. 18, pp. 4755–4762, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  27. M. E. Roberts, S. A. Jackson, L. R. Susswein et al., “MSH6 and PMS2 germ-line pathogenic variants implicated in Lynch syndrome are associated with breast cancer,” Genetics in Medicine, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1167–1174, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  28. J. M. D. Wheeler, W. F. Bodmer, and N. J. McC Mortensen, “DNA mismatch repair genes and colorectal cancer,” Gut, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 148–153, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. D. T. Le, J. N. Uram, H. Wang et al., “PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 372, no. 26, pp. 2509–2520, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  30. A. J. Davis and D. J. Chen, “DNA double strand break repair via non-homologous end-joining,” Transl Cancer Res, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 130–143, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  31. M. Gostissa, F. W. Alt, and R. Chiarle, “Mechanisms that promote and suppress chromosomal translocations in lymphocytes,” Annual Review of Immunology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 319–350, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  32. M. R. Lieber, “The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end-joining pathway,” Annual Review of Biochemistry, vol. 79, pp. 181–211, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. R. G. Sargent, M. A. Brenneman, and J. H. Wilson, “Repair of site-specific double-strand breaks in a mammalian chromosome by homologous and illegitimate recombination.,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 267–277, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  34. C. Arnaudeau, C. Lundin, and T. Helleday, “DNA double-strand breaks associated with replication forks are predominantly repaired by homologous recombination involving an exchange mechanism in mammalian cells,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 307, no. 5, pp. 1235–1245, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. W. D. Wright, S. S. Shah, and W.-D. Heyer, “Homologous recombination and the repair of DNA double-strand breaks,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 293, no. 27, pp. 10524–10535, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. X. Zhao, C. Wei, J. Li et al., “Cell cycle-dependent control of homologous recombination,” Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 655–668, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. M. E. Moynahan, T. Y. Cui, and M. Jasin, “Homology-directed DNA repair, mitomycin-C resistance, and chromosome stability is restored with correction of a Brca1 mutation,” Cancer Research, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 4842–4850, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. R. D. Kennedy and A. D. D'Andrea, “The fanconi anemia/BRCA pathway: new faces in the crowd,” Genes & Development, vol. 19, no. 24, pp. 2925–2940, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. J. M. Hall, M. K. Lee, B. Newman et al., “Linkage of early-onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21,” Science, vol. 250, no. 4988, pp. 1684–1689, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. Y. Miki, J. Swensen, D. Shattuck-Eidens et al., “A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1,” Science, vol. 266, no. 5182, pp. 66–71, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. S. L. Sawyer, L. Tian, M. Kähkönen et al., “Biallelic mutations in BRCA1 cause a new Fanconi anemia subtype,” Cancer Discovery, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 135–142, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  42. N. G. Howlett, T. Taniguchi, S. Olson et al., “Biallelic inactivation of BRCA2 in Fanconi anemia,” Science, vol. 297, no. 5581, pp. 606–609, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. M. Tischkowitz and B. Xia, “PALB2/FANCN: Recombining cancer and fanconi anemia,” Cancer Research, vol. 70, no. 19, pp. 7353–7359, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. A. C. Antoniou, S. Casadei, T. Heikkinen et al., “Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 371, no. 6, pp. 497–506, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  45. C. Cybulski, W. Kluźniak, T. Huzarski et al., “Clinical outcomes in women with breast cancer and a PALB2 mutation: a prospective cohort analysis,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 638–644, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  46. M. Levitus, Q. Waisfisz, B. C. Godthelp et al., “The DNA helicase BRIP1 is defective in Fanconi anemia complementation group J,” Nature Genetics, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 934-935, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. O. Levran, C. Attwooll, R. T. Henry et al., “The BRCA1-interacting helicase BRIP1 is deficient in Fanconi anemia,” Nature Genetics, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 931–933, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. Y. Kim, G. S. Spitz, U. Veturi, F. P. Lach, A. D. Auerbach, and A. Smogorzewska, “Regulation of multiple DNA repair pathways by the Fanconi anemia protein SLX4,” Blood, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 54–63, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. S. Shah, Y. Kim, I. Ostrovnaya et al., “Assessment of SLX4 mutations in hereditary breast cancers,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 6, Article ID e66961, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  50. J. I. Kiiski, L. M. Pelttari, S. Khan et al., “Exome sequencing identifies FANCM as a susceptibility gene for triple-negative breast cancer,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 111, no. 42, pp. 15172–15177, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  51. J. S. Brown, B. O'Carrigan, S. P. Jackson, and T. A. Yap, “Targeting DNA repair in cancer: beyond PARP inhibitors,” Cancer Discovery, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 20–37, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  52. T. Aparicio and J. Gautier, “BRCA1-CtIP interaction in the repair of DNA double-strand breaks,” Molecular & Cellular Oncology, vol. 3, no. 4, Article ID e1169343, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  53. K. J. Patel, “Fanconi anemia and breast cancer susceptibility,” Nature Genetics, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 142-143, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  54. R. Roy, J. Chun, and S. N. Powell, “BRCA1 and BRCA2: Different roles in a common pathway of genome protection,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 68–78, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. A. Tutt, H. Tovey, M. C. Cheang et al., “Carboplatin in BRCA1/2-mutated and triple-negative breast cancer BRCAness subgroups: the TNT Trial,” Nature Medicine, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 628–637, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  56. B. J. Sishc and A. J. Davis, “The role of the core non-homologous end joining factors in carcinogenesis and cancer,” Cancers (Basel), vol. 9, no. 7, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  57. H. Murata, N. H. Khattar, L. Gu, and G. Li, “Roles of mismatch repair proteins hMSH2 and hMLH1 in the development of sporadic breast cancer,” Cancer Letters, vol. 223, no. 1, pp. 143–150, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  58. N. Benachenhou, S. Guiral, I. Gorska-Flipot, D. Labuda, and D. Sinnett, “Frequent loss of heterozygosity at the DNA mismatch-repair loci hMLH1 and hMSH3 in sporadic breast cancer,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 79, no. 7-8, pp. 1012–1017, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  59. P. Chacko, B. Rajan, T. Joseph, B. S. Mathew, and M. Radhakrishna Pillai, “Polymorphisms in DNA repair gene XRCC1 and increased genetic susceptibility to breast cancer,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 15–21, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  60. M. Majidinia and B. Yousefi, “DNA repair and damage pathways in breast cancer development and therapy,” DNA Repair, vol. 54, pp. 22–29, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  61. F. Shah, D. Logsdon, R. A. Messmann, J. C. Fehrenbacher, M. L. Fishel, and M. R. Kelley, “Exploiting the Ref-1-APE1 node in cancer signaling and other diseases: from bench to clinic,” npj Precision Oncology, vol. 1, no. 1, article no 19, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  62. H. S. Rugo, J.-P. Delord, S.-A. Im et al., “Safety and antitumor activity of pembrolizumab in patients with estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 2804–2811, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. S. Adams, P. Schmid, H. S. Rugo et al., “Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: cohort A of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 397–404, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  64. R. Nanda, L. Q. M. Chow, E. C. Dees et al., “Pembrolizumab in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer: Phase Ib keynote-012 study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 34, no. 21, pp. 2460–2467, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. C. Solinas, A. Gombos, S. Latifyan, M. Piccart-Gebhart, M. Kok, and L. Buisseret, “Targeting immune checkpoints in breast cancer: an update of early results,” ESMO Open, vol. 2, no. 5, Article ID e000255, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  66. J. M. García, A. Llombart, J. L. Alonso et al., “Abstract CT152: A phase II study of pembrolizumab and eribulin in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes (KELLY study),” Cancer Research, vol. 78, supplement 13, Article ID CT152, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  67. L. J. Esserman, D. A. Berry, A. DeMichele et al., “Pathologic complete Response Predicts Recurrence-Free Survival More Effectively by Cancer Subset: Results From the I-SPY 1 TRIAL—CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 30, no. 26, pp. 3242–3249, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. P. Schmid, Y. H. Park, E. Muñoz-Couselo et al., “Pembrolizumab (pembro) + chemotherapy (chemo) as neoadjuvant treatment for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC): preliminary results from KEYNOTE-173,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 35, article no 556, supplement 15, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  69. S. Loibl, M. Untch, N. Burchardi et al., “Randomized phase II neoadjuvant study (GeparNuevo) to investigate the addition of durvalumab to a taxane-anthracycline containing chemotherapy in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC),” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 36, article no 104, supplement 15, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  70. S. Domchek, S. Postel-Vinay, S. Im et al., “Abstract OT3-05-03: MEDIOLA: an open-label, phase I/II basket study of olaparib (PARP inhibitor) and durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 antibody)–Additional breast cancer cohorts,” Cancer Research, vol. 79, supplement 4, Article ID OT3-05-03, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  71. L. A. Emens, C. Cruz, J. P. Eder et al., “Long-term clinical outcomes and biomarker analyses of atezolizumab therapy for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” JAMA Oncology, vol. 5, no. 1, article no 74, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  72. S. Verma, D. Miles, L. Gianni et al., “Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 367, no. 19, pp. 1783–1791, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. K. Khoury, C. Isaacs, M. Gatti-Mays et al., “Abstract OT3-04-01: Nivolumab or capecitabine or combination therapy as adjuvant therapy for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) with residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: The OXEL study,” Cancer Research, vol. 79, supplement 4, Article ID OT3-04-01, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  74. C. Omarini, G. Guaitoli, S. Pipitone et al., “Neoadjuvant treatments in triple-negative breast cancer patients: where we are now and where we are going,” Cancer Management and Research, vol. 10, pp. 91–103, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  75. L. Y. Dirix, I. Takacs, G. Jerusalem et al., “Avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: A phase 1b JAVELIN solid tumor study,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 167, no. 3, pp. 671–686, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. K. Oualla, H. M. El-Zawahry, B. Arun et al., “Novel therapeutic strategies in the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer,” Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 493–511, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  77. J. Abdo, D. L. Cornell, S. K. Mittal, and D. K. Agrawal, “Immunotherapy plus cryotherapy: potential augmented abscopal effect for advanced cancers,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 8, article no 85, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  78. D. Robinson, E. M. Van Allen, and Y.-M. Wu, “Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer,” Cell, vol. 161, no. 5, pp. 1215–1228, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  79. Y. A. Wang, J. Jian, C. Hung et al., “Germline breast cancer susceptibility gene mutations and breast cancer outcomes,” BMC Cancer, vol. 18, no. 1, article no 315, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  80. Network TCGAR, “Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma,” Nature, vol. 474, no. 7353, pp. 609–615, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  81. R. P. Kaur, G. Shafi, R. P. Benipal, and A. Munshi, “Frequency of pathogenic germline mutations in cancer susceptibility genes in breast cancer patients,” Medical Oncology, vol. 35, no. 6, article no 81, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  82. Y. Shen, Y.-H. Lee, J. Panneerselvam, J. Zhang, L. W. M. Loo, and P. Fei, “Mutated fanconi anemia pathway in non-fanconi anemia cancers,” Oncotarget, vol. 6, no. 24, pp. 20396–20403, 2015. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. M. Esteller, J. M. Silva, G. Dominguez et al., “Promoter hypermethylation and BRCA1 inactivation in sporadic breast and ovarian tumors,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 92, no. 7, pp. 564–569, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. A. Potapova, A. M. Hoffman, A. K. Godwin, T. Al-Saleem, and P. Cairns, “Promoter hypermethylation of the PALB2 susceptibility gene in inherited and sporadic breast and ovarian cancer,” Cancer Research, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 998–1002, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. T. Hansmann, G. Pliushch, M. Leubner et al., “Constitutive promoter methylation of BRCA1 and RAD51C in patients with familial ovarian cancer and early-onset sporadic breast cancer,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 21, no. 21, pp. 4669–4679, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  86. M. Wei, J. Xu, J. Dignam et al., “Estrogen receptor α, BRCA1, and FANCF promoter methylation occur in distinct subsets of sporadic breast cancers,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 113–120, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  87. C. J. Lord and A. Ashworth, “BRCAness revisited,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 110–120, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  88. N. Riaz, P. Blecua, R. S. Lim et al., “Pan-cancer analysis of bi-allelic alterations in homologous recombination DNA repair genes,” Nature Communications, vol. 8, no. 1, article no 857, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  89. J. M. Mulligan, L. A. Hill, S. Deharo et al., “Identification and validation of an anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy response assay in breast cancer,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 106, no. 1, Article ID djt335, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. E. E. Parkes, S. M. Walker, L. E. Taggart et al., “Activation of STING-dependent innate immune signaling By S-phase-specific DNA damage in breast cancer,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 109, no. 1, Article ID djw199, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  91. S. R. Lakhani, J. Jacquemier, J. P. Sloane et al., “Multifactorial analysis of differences between sporadic breast cancers and cancers involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 90, no. 15, pp. 1138–1145, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  92. A. L. Bane, J. C. Beck, I. Bleiweiss et al., “BRCA2 mutation-associated breast cancers exhibit a distinguishing phenotype based on morphology and molecular profiles from tissue microarrays,” The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 121–128, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  93. C. DelloRusso, P. L. Welcsh, W. Wang, R. L. Garcia, M. King, and E. M. Swisher, “Functional characterization of a novel BRCA1-null ovarian cancer cell line in response to ionizing radiation,” Molecular Cancer Research, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 35–45, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  94. H. Xu, J. Xian, E. Vire et al., “Up-regulation of the interferon-related genes in BRCA2 knockout epithelial cells,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 234, no. 3, pp. 386–397, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  95. X. Ma, K. Norsworthy, N. Kundu et al., “CXCR3 expression is associated with poor survival in breast cancer and promotes metastasis in a murine model,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 490–498, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  96. A. A. Ejaeidi, B. S. Craft, L. V. Puneky, R. E. Lewis, and J. M. Cruse, “Hormone receptor-independent CXCL10 production is associated with the regulation of cellular factors linked to breast cancer progression and metastasis,” Experimental and Molecular Pathology, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 163–172, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  97. Y. J. Ku, H. H. Kim, J. H. Cha et al., “Predicting the level of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in patients with triple-negative breast cancer: Usefulness of breast MRI computer-aided detection and diagnosis,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 760–766, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  98. C. Herrero-Vicent, A. Guerrera, J. Gavilá et al., “Predictive and prognostic impact of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” ecancermedicalscience, vol. 11, article no 759, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  99. P. Savas, R. Salgado, C. Denkert et al., “Clinical relevance of host immunity in breast cancer: from TILs to the clinic,” Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 228–241, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  100. S. Loi, N. Sirtaine, F. Piette et al., “Prognostic and predictive value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in a phase III randomized adjuvant breast cancer trial in node-positive breast cancer comparing the addition of docetaxel to doxorubicin with doxorubicin-based chemotherapy: BIG 02-98,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 860–867, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  101. A. Balsari, A. Merlo, P. Casalini et al., “FOXP3 expression and overall survival in breast cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 1746–1752, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. N. R. West, S. E. Kost, S. D. Martin et al., “Tumor-infiltrating FOXP3(+) lymphocytes are associated with cytotoxic immune responses and good clinical outcome in oestrogen receptor-negative breast cancer,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 155–162, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. B. Weigelt, R. Bi, R. Kumar et al., “The landscape of somatic genetic alterations in breast cancers from ATM germline mutation carriers,” JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 110, no. 9, pp. 1030–1034, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  104. G. Landskron, M. De la Fuente, P. Thuwajit, C. Thuwajit, and M. A. Hermoso, “Chronic inflammation and cytokines in the tumor microenvironment,” Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2014, Article ID 149185, 19 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  105. P. Allavena, A. Sica, G. Solinas, C. Porta, and A. Mantovani, “The inflammatory micro-environment in tumor progression: The role of tumor-associated macrophages,” Critical Review in Oncology/Hematology, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  106. I. S. Pateras, S. Havaki, X. Nikitopoulou et al., “The DNA damage response and immune signaling alliance: Is it good or bad? Nature decides when and where,” Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 154, pp. 36–56, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  107. H. Ishikawa and G. N. Barber, “STING is an endoplasmic reticulum adaptor that facilitates innate immune signalling,” Nature, vol. 455, no. 7213, pp. 674–678, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  108. A. Härtlova, S. F. Erttmann, F. A. M. Raffi et al., “DNA damage primes the type i interferon system via the cytosolic DNA sensor STING to promote anti-microbial innate immunity,” Immunity, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 332–343, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  109. S. M. Harding, J. L. Benci, J. Irianto, D. E. Discher, A. J. Minn, and R. A. Greenberg, “Mitotic progression following DNA damage enables pattern recognition within micronuclei,” Nature, vol. 548, no. 7668, pp. 466–470, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  110. K. J. MacKenzie, P. Carroll, C.-A. Martin et al., “CGAS surveillance of micronuclei links genome instability to innate immunity,” Nature, vol. 548, no. 7668, pp. 461–465, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  111. L. Sun, J. Wu, F. Du, X. Chen, and Z. J. Chen, “Cyclic GMP-AMP synthase is a cytosolic DNA sensor that activates the type I interferon pathway,” Science, vol. 339, no. 6121, pp. 786–791, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  112. J. Wu, L. Sun, X. Chen et al., “Cyclic GMP-AMP is an endogenous second messenger in innate immune signaling by cytosolic DNA,” Science, vol. 339, no. 6121, pp. 826–830, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  113. T. Li and Z. J. Chen, “The cGAS–cGAMP–STING pathway connects DNA damage to inflammation, senescence, and cancer,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 215, no. 5, pp. 1287–1299, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  114. L. Corrales, V. Matson, B. Flood, S. Spranger, and T. F. Gajewski, “Innate immune signaling and regulation in cancer immunotherapy,” Cell Research, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 96–108, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  115. J. Ahn, T. Xia, H. Konno, K. Konno, P. Ruiz, and G. N. Barber, “Inflammation-driven carcinogenesis is mediated through STING,” Nature Communications, vol. 5, article no 5166, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  116. L. Deng, H. Liang, M. Xu et al., “STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensing promotes radiation-induced type I interferon-dependent antitumor immunity in immunogenic tumors,” Immunity, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 543–852, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  117. R. D. Wilkinson, D. I. Johnston, E. E. Parkes, N. McCabe, and R. D. Kennedy, “Abstract 3787: exploring the effect of chemotherapies on STING-dependent cytokine release,” Cancer Research, vol. 78, Supplement 13, Article ID 3787, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  118. K. J. Harrington, J. Brody, M. Ingham et al., “LBA15Preliminary results of the first-in-human (FIH) study of MK-1454, an agonist of stimulator of interferon genes (STING), as monotherapy or in combination with pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients with advanced solid tumors or lymphomas,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 29, supplement 8, Article ID mdy424.015, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  119. S. Iurescia, D. Fioretti, and M. Rinaldi, “Targeting Cytosolic Nucleic Acid-Sensing Pathways for Cancer Immunotherapies,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 9, article no 711, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  120. D. R. Ranoa, A. D. Parekh, S. P. Pitroda et al., “Cancer therapies activate RIG-I-like receptor pathway through endogenous non-coding RNAs,” Oncotarget, vol. 7, no. 18, pp. 26496–26515, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  121. K. Kübler, N. Gehrke, S. Riemann et al., “Targeted activation of RNA helicase retinoic acid–inducible gene-i induces proimmunogenic apoptosis of human ovarian cancer cells,” Cancer Research, vol. 70, no. 13, pp. 5293–5304, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  122. J. Fu, D. B. Kanne, M. Leong et al., “STING agonist formulated cancer vaccines can cure established tumors resistant to PD-1 blockade,” Sci Transl Med, vol. 7, no. 283, Article ID 283ra52, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  123. L. Corrales, L. H. Glickman, S. M. McWhirter et al., “Direct activation of STING in the tumor microenvironment leads to potent and systemic tumor regression and immunity,” Cell Reports, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1018–1030, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  124. H. Liang, L. Deng, Y. Hou et al., “Host STING-dependent MDSC mobilization drives extrinsic radiation resistance,” Nature Communications, vol. 8, no. 1, article no 1736, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  125. H. Zhu, Y. Gu, Y. Xue, M. Yuan, X. Cao, and Q. Liu, “CXCR2+ MDSCs promote breast cancer progression by inducing EMT and activated T cell exhaustion,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 70, pp. 114554–114567, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  126. S. Glück, B. Guey, M. F. Gulen et al., “Innate immune sensing of cytosolic chromatin fragments through cGAS promotes senescence,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1061–1070, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  127. Z. Dou, K. Ghosh, M. G. Vizioli et al., “Cytoplasmic chromatin triggers inflammation in senescence and cancer,” Nature, vol. 550, no. 7676, pp. 402–406, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  128. H. Yang, H. Wang, J. Ren, Q. Chen, and Z. J. Chen, “cGAS is essential for cellular senescence,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 114, no. 23, pp. E4612–E4620, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  129. S. F. Bakhoum, B. Ngo, A. M. Laughney et al., “Chromosomal instability drives metastasis through a cytosolic DNA response,” Nature, vol. 553, article no 467, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  130. D. M. Pardoll, “The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 252–264, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  131. M. Nishino, N. H. Ramaiya, H. Hatabu, and F. S. Hodi, “Monitoring immune-checkpoint blockade: Response evaluation and biomarker development,” Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 655–668, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  132. T. F. Gajewski, H. Schreiber, and Y. X. Fu, “Innate and adaptive immune cells in the tumor microenvironment,” Nature Immunology, vol. 14, pp. 1014–1022, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  133. K. M. Mahoney, P. D. Rennert, and G. J. Freeman, “Combination cancer immunotherapy and new immunomodulatory targets,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 561–584, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  134. J. Lee, R. Kefford, and M. Carlino, “PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in melanoma treatment: past success, present application and future challenges,” Immunotherapy, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 733–746, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  135. L. T. Nguyen and P. S. Ohashi, “Clinical blockade of PD1 and LAG3 — potential mechanisms of action,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 45–56, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  136. S. Liang, Y. Latchman, J. Buhlmann et al., “Regulation of PD-1, PD-L1, and PD-L2 expression during normal and autoimmune responses,” European Journal of Immunology, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 2706–2716, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  137. X. Wang, F. Teng, L. Kong, and J. Yu, “PD-L1 expression in human cancers and its association with clinical outcomes,” OncoTargets and Therapy, pp. 5023–5039, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  138. M. Z. Baptista, L. O. Sarian, S. F. M. Derchain, G. A. Pinto, and J. Vassallo, “Prognostic significance of PD-L1 and PD-L2 in breast cancer,” Human Pathology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 78–84, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  139. J. He, Y. Hu, M. Hu, and B. Li, “Development of PD-1/PD-L1 pathway in tumor immune microenvironment and treatment for non-small cell lung cancer,” Scientific Reports, vol. 5, no. 1, Article ID 13110, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  140. D. G. Brooks, S. Ha, H. Elsaesser, A. H. Sharpe, G. J. Freeman, and M. B. Oldstone, “IL-10 and PD-L1 operate through distinct pathways to suppress T-cell activity during persistent viral infection,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 51, pp. 20428–20433, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  141. H. Guan, Y. Wan, J. Lan et al., “PD-L1 is a critical mediator of regulatory B cells and T cells in invasive breast cancer,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, Article ID 35651, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  142. S. Amarnath, C. W. Mangus, J. C. M. Wang et al., “The PDL1-PD1 axis converts human TH1 cells into regulatory T cells,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 3, no. 111, Article ID 111ra120, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  143. H. O. Alsaab, S. Sau, R. Alzhrani et al., “PD-1 and PD-L1 checkpoint signaling inhibition for cancer immunotherapy: mechanism, combinations, and clinical outcome,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 8, article no. 561, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  144. F. Bertucci and A. Gonçalves, “Immunotherapy in breast cancer: the emerging role of PD-1 and PD-L1,” Current Oncology Reports, vol. 19, no. 10, article no 64, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  145. M. M. Boyiadzis, J. M. Kirkwood, J. L. Marshall, C. C. Pritchard, N. S. Azad, and J. L. Gulley, “Significance and implications of FDA approval of pembrolizumab for biomarker-defined disease,” Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer, vol. 6, no. 1, article no 35, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  146. T. A. Chan, M. Yarchoan, E. Jaffee et al., “Development of tumor mutation burden as an immunotherapy biomarker: utility for the oncology clinic,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 44–56, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  147. M. W. Audeh, F. Dadmanesh, and J. Yearley, “Abstract P4-04-01: PDL-1 expression in primary breast cancers with germline mutations in BRCA 1 and 2,” Cancer Research, vol. 76, supplement 4, Article ID P-P4-04-01, 2016, http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/76/4_Supplement/P4-04-01.abstract. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  148. D. Samanta, Y. Park, X. Ni et al., “Chemotherapy induces enrichment of CD47 + /CD73 + /PDL1 + immune evasive triple-negative breast cancer cells,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 115, no. 6, pp. E1239–E1248, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  149. S. Adams, M. E. Gatti-Mays, K. Kalinsky et al., “Current landscape of immunotherapy in breast cancer,” JAMA Oncology, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  150. Y. Wang, S. Zhou, F. Yang et al., “Treatment-related adverse events of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trialsa systematic review and meta-analysis,” JAMA Oncology, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  151. R. Plummer, C. Jones, M. Middleton et al., “Phase i study of the poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase inhibitor, AG014699, in combination with temozolomide in patients with advanced solid tumors,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 14, no. 23, pp. 7917–7923, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  152. H. Farmer, H. McCabe, C. J. Lord et al., “Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy,” Nature, vol. 434, no. 7035, pp. 917–921, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  153. H. E. Bryant, N. Schultz, H. D. Thomas et al., “Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase,” Nature, vol. 434, no. 7035, pp. 913–917, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  154. M. Robson, S. Im, E. Senkus et al., “Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 377, no. 6, pp. 523–533, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  155. J. K. Litton, H. S. Rugo, J. Ettl et al., “Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 379, no. 8, pp. 753–763, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  156. R. A. Stewart, P. G. Pilié, and T. A. Yap, “Development of PARP and immune-checkpoint inhibitor combinations,” Cancer Research, vol. 78, no. 24, pp. 6717–6725, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  157. J. Shen, W. Zhao, Z. Ju et al., “PARPi triggers the STING-dependent immune response and enhances the therapeutic efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade independent of BRCAness,” Cancer Research, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 311–319, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  158. T. Sen, B. L. Rodriguez, L. Chen et al., “Targeting DNA damage response promotes anti-tumor immunity through STING-mediated T-cell activation in small cell lung cancer,” Cancer Discovery, vol. 9, no. 5, Article ID CD-18-1020, pp. 646–661, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  159. R. M. Chabanon, G. Muirhead, D. B. Krastev et al., “PARP inhibition enhances tumor cell–intrinsic immunity in ERCC1-deficient non–small cell lung cancer,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 129, no. 3, pp. 1211–1228, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  160. C. Pantelidou, O. Sonzogni, M. De Oliveria Taveira et al., “PARP inhibitor efficacy depends on CD8+ T cell recruitment via intratumoral STING pathway activation in BRCA-deficient models of triple-negative breast cancer,” Cancer Discovery, vol. 9, no. 6, Article ID CD-18-1218, pp. 722–737, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  161. S. Domchek, S. Postel-Vinay, Y. Bang et al., “Abstract PD6-11: an open-label, multitumor, phase II basket study of olaparib and durvalumab (MEDIOLA): results in germline BRCA-mutated (g BRCA m) HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC),” Cancer Research, vol. 78, supplement 4, Article ID PD6-11, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  162. S. Vinayak, S. Tolaney, L. Schwartzberg et al., “bstract PD5-02: durability of clinical benefit with niraparib + pembrolizumab in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer beyond BRCA: (TOPACIO/Keynote-162),” Cancer Research, vol. 79, supplement 4, Article ID PD5-02, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  163. D. Fukumura, J. Kloepper, Z. Amoozgar, D. G. Duda, and R. K. Jain, “Enhancing cancer immunotherapy using antiangiogenics: opportunities and challenges,” Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 325–340, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  164. K. W. Mouw, M. S. Goldberg, P. A. Konstantinopoulos, and A. D. D'Andrea, “DNA damage and repair biomarkers of immunotherapy response,” Cancer Discovery, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 675–693, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  165. V. G. Gorgoulis and T. D. Halazonetis, “Oncogene-induced senescence: the bright and dark side of the response,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 816–827, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar