Linda A. Schuler

Background: Most patients with estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer do not respond to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI); the tumor microenvironment (TME) of these cancers is generally immunosuppressive and contains few tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Radiation therapy (RT) can increase tumor inflammation and infiltration by lymphocytes but does not improve responses to ICIs in these patients. This may result, in part, from additional effects of RT that suppress anti-tumor immunity, including increased tumor infiltration by myeloid-derived suppressor cells and regulatory T cells. We hypothesized that anti-estrogens, which are a standard of care for ER+ breast cancer, may ameliorate these detrimental effects of RT by reducing the recruitment/ activation of suppressive immune populations in the radiated TME, increasing anti-tumor immunity and responsiveness to ICIs. Methods: To interrogate the effect of the selective estrogen receptor downregulator, fulvestrant, on the irradiated TME in the absence of confounding growth inhibition by fulvestrant on tumor cells, we used the TC11 murine model of anti-estrogen resistant ER+ breast cancer. Tumors were orthotopically transplanted into immunocompetent syngeneic mice. Once tumors were established, we initiated treatment with fulvestrant or vehicle, followed by external beam RT one week later. We examined the number and activity of tumor infiltrating immune cells using flow cytometry, microscopy, transcript levels, and cytokine profiles. We tested whether fulvestrant improved tumor response and animal survival when added to the combination of RT and ICI. Results: Despite resistance of TC11 tumors to anti-estrogen therapy alone, fulvestrant slowed tumor regrowth following RT, and significantly altered multiple immune populations in the irradiated TME. Fulvestrant reduced the influx of Ly6C+Ly6G+ cells, increased markers of pro-inflammatory myeloid cells and activated T cells, and augmented the ratio of CD8+: FOXP3+ T cells. In contrast to the minimal effects of ICIs when co-treated with either fulvestrant or RT alone, combinatorial treatment with fulvestrant, RT and ICIs significantly reduced tumor growth and prolonged survival. Conclusions: A combination of RT and fulvestrant can overcome the immunosuppressive TME in a preclinical model of ER+ breast cancer, enhancing the anti-tumor response and increasing the response to ICIs, even when growth of tumor cells is no longer estrogen sensitive.

Prolactin coordinates with the ovarian steroids to orchestrate mammary development and lactation, culminating in nourishment and an increasingly appreciated array of other benefits for neonates. Its central activities in mammary epithelial growth and differentiation suggest that it plays a role(s) in breast cancer, but it has been challenging to identify its contributions, essential for incorporation into prevention and treatment approaches. Large prospective epidemiologic studies have linked higher prolactin exposure to increased risk, particularly for ER+ breast cancer in postmenopausal women. However, it has been more difficult to determine its actions and clinical consequences in established tumors. Here we review experimental data implicating multiple mechanisms by which prolactin may increase the risk of breast cancer. We then consider the evidence for role(s) of prolactin and its downstream signaling cascades in disease progression and treatment responses, and discuss how new approaches are beginning to illuminate the biology behind the seemingly conflicting epidemiologic and experimental studies of prolactin actions across diverse breast cancers.

A proportion of secreted pituitary prolactin (PRL) is phosphorylated. However, because most commercial sources of PRL are recombinant proteins without posttranslational modification, the importance of PRL phosphorylation to the production of milk proteins is an understudied area. Here, we have examined the effect of PRL phosphorylation on expression of the milk protein, β-casein, using a phospho-stable mimic of the phosphorylated form (S179D-PRL) and analyzing promoter activation and mRNA stability over a 7-day treatment period in response to this and unmodified PRL. At equivalent concentrations, the phospho-mimic showed a superior ability to activate a −2300 → +490 region of the promoter, but not an artificial promoter consisting of three Stat5 consensus sites upstream of a minimal promoter. Unlike unmodified PRL, S179D-PRL was also able to stabilize β-casein mRNA. These effects of S179D-PRL were eliminated by incubation in the MAP kinase pathway inhibitor, U0126, bringing promoter activation down to the level seen with unmodified PRL and essentially eliminating the effect on mRNA stability. These results support an important role for the posttranslational phosphorylation of PRL and signaling through the MAP kinase pathway in the production of this milk protein.

Estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) marks heterogeneous breast cancers which display a repertoire of somatic genomic mutations and an immune environment that differs from other breast cancer subtypes. These cancers also exhibit distinct biological behaviors; despite an overall better prognosis than HER2+ or triple negative breast cancers, disseminated dormant cells can lead to disease recurrence decades after the initial diagnosis and treatment. Estrogen is the best studied driver of these cancers, and antagonism or reduction of estrogen activity is the cornerstone of therapeutic approaches. In addition to reducing proliferation of ERα+ cancer cells, these treatments also alter signals to multiple other target cells in the environment, including immune cell subpopulations, cancer-associated fibroblasts, and endothelial cells via several distinct estrogen receptors. In this review, we update progress in our understanding of the stromal cells populating the microenvironments of primary and metastatic ER+ tumors, the effects of estrogen on tumor and stromal cells to modulate immune activity and the extracellular matrix, and net outcomes in experimental and clinical studies. We highlight new approaches that will illuminate the unique biology of these cancers, provide the foundation for developing new treatment and prevention strategies, and reduce mortality of this disease.

Accumulating evidence suggests that our ability to predict chemical effects on breast cancer is limited by a lack of physiologically relevant in vitro models; the typical in vitro breast cancer model consists of the cancer cell and excludes the mammary microenvironment. As the effects of the microenvironment on cancer cell behavior becomes more understood, researchers have called for the integration of the microenvironment into in vitro chemical testing systems. However, given the complexity of the microenvironment and the variety of platforms to choose from, identifying the essential parameters to include in a chemical testing platform is challenging. This review discusses the need for more complex in vitro breast cancer models and outlines different approaches used to model breast cancer in vitro. We provide examples of the microenvironment modulating breast cancer cell responses to chemicals and discuss strategies to help pinpoint what components should be included in a model.

Metastatic, antiestrogen resistant estrogen receptor α positive (ER+) breast cancer is the leading cause of breast cancer deaths in USA women. While studies have demonstrated the importance of the stromal tumor microenvironment in cancer progression and therapeutic responses, effects on the responses of ER+ cancers to estrogen and antiestrogens are poorly understood, particularly in the complex in vivo environment. In this study, we used an estrogen responsive syngeneic mouse model to interrogate how a COL1A1-enriched fibrotic ECM modulates integrated hormonal responses in cancer progression. We orthotopically transplanted the ER+ TC11 cell line into wild-type (WT) or collagen-dense (Col1a1^tm1Jae/+, mCol1a1) syngeneic FVB/N female mice. Once tumors were established, recipients were supplemented with 17β-estradiol (E2), tamoxifen, or left untreated. Although the dense/stiff environment in mCol1a1 recipients did not alter the rate of E2-induced proliferation of the primary tumor, it fostered the agonist activity of tamoxifen to increase proliferation and AP-1 activity. Manipulation of estrogen activity did not alter the incidence of lung lesions in either WT or mCol1a1 hosts. However, the mCol1a1 environment enabled tamoxifen-stimulated growth of pulmonary metastases and further fueled estrogen-driven growth. Moreover, E2 remodeled peritumoral ECM architecture in WT animals, modifying alignment of collagen fibers and altering synthesis of ECM components associated with increased alignment and stiffness, and increasing FN1 and POSTN expression in the pulmonary metastatic niche. These studies demonstrate dynamic interactions between ECM properties and estrogen activity in progression of ER+ breast cancer, and support the need for therapeutics that target both ER and the tumor microenvironment.