Comparison of autogeneic and allogeneic natural killer cells immunotherapy on the clinical outcome of recurrent breast cancer

Figures & data

Table 1 Patient clinical information

Characteristics	Group I (n=18)	Group II (n=18)	P-value
Age (years)			0.502
<50	7	9
≥50	11	9
Degree of differentiation			0.915
High	7	8
Moderate	6	6
Poor	5	4
Tumor histology			0.832
Invasive ductal carcinoma	15	14
Invasive lobular carcinoma	1	2
Others (mixed, mucinous, metaplastic, apocrine)	2	2
Approximated tumor subtype			0.788
HER2-positive	3	4
HER2-negative/HR-positive	13	13
Triple negative	2	1
Previous therapy			0.959
Surgery	16	14
Chemotherapy	12	9
Radiotherapy	8	7
Clinical stage (AJCC)			0.735
III	10	11
IV	8	7
KPS			0.765
70	4	3
80	5	7
90	9	8

Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; KPS, Karnofsky performance status.

Figure 1 Adverse effects of the two treatment.

Note: The adverse effects observed were classified as Grade 1, and their incidence rate was not significantly different between the two groups (P>0.05).

Table 2 Comparison of immune function between the two groups

Lymphocyte test	Detection results
	Pretreatment (n=36)	Group I (n=18)	Group II (n=18)
Number (cells/μL)
Total T cell	1,302±48	1,431±60*	1,758±45**
CD8^+ T cell	619±12	625±26	638±15
CD4^+ T cell	713±28	718±23	737±19
NK cell	432±41	498±46*	621±52***
B cell	318±36	346±23	428±46**
Function (pg/mL)
IL-2	9.4±2.1	13.5±3.8*	24.6±4.1***
TNF-β	3.6±1.3	8.3±1.8*	13.4±2.6**
IFN-γ	3.5±0.9	5.8±2.6	13.2±1.9**
IL-4	9.8±2.7	10.2±2.0	10.8±2.3
IL-6	13.2±3.2	15.5±2.5	15.1±2.8
IL-10	9.3±2.4	9.6±1.7	10.1±2.8

Notes: Data are presented as the mean ± SD. Each cell subset or cytokine was analyzed by the Student’s t-test;

* P<0.05,

** P<0.01,

*** P<0.001 versus pretreatment.

Abbreviations: IFN-γ, interferon gamma; IL, interleukin; NK, natural killer; TNF-β, tumor necrosis factor-β.

Figure 2 Changes in the CTC level before treatment and 2 months after treatment.

Notes: (A) Changes in the CTC levels in group I were not significant (P>0.05). (B) The CTC level in group II decreased significantly at 2 months after treatment (P<0.01). ^**P<0.01.
Abbreviation: CTC, circulating tumor cell.

Figure 3 Flow cytometry images of a 53-year-old patient in group II.

Notes: (A) The CTC number of the patient was 21 before treatment. (B) After treatment, the CTC number reduced to 9.
Abbreviations: APC, allophycocyan; CTC, circulating tumor cell; FITC, fluorescein isothiocyanate; PE, phycoerythrin.

Figure 4 CT images of a 46-year-old patient with breast cancer.

Notes: (A) CT scan of the patient showing a soft tissue mass (8.0×3.8×5.7 cm) with ill-defined margins in the right breast. Enhanced CT demonstrated moderate heterogeneous enhancement of the mass. There are many swollen lymph nodes in armpit, and the larger ones are about 2.9×1.7×3.8 cm. (B) At 2 months after treatment, the size of mass reduced to 6.8×3.5×5.8 cm with mild heterogeneous enhancement. The larger swollen lymph node was shrunk obviously. The red arrows indicate the tumor.
Abbreviation: CT, computed tomography.

Table 3 Maximum transverse diameter and CT value of the lesions before and after treatment

Time	Diameter (cm)	CT value (HU)
Pretreatment
Group I (n=18)	4.49±1.26	41.21±6.77
Group II (n=18)	4.53±1.68	43.09±5.68
1 month after treatment
Group I	4.22±1.03	37.72±3.12
Group II	4.17±1.27	38.11±2.06
2 months after treatment
Group I	3.93±1.38	35.93±3.25
Group II	3.37±1.49*	30.17±4.68*

Notes: Data are presented as the mean ± SD. The data were analyzed using the Student’s t-test;

* P<0.05 versus Group I.

Abbreviation: CT, computed tomography.

Table 4 Comparison of the curative effect between the two groups at 2 months post-treatment

Group	n	CR	PR	SD	PD	RR
I	18	0	1 (5.56)	10 (55.56)	7 (38.89)	5.56
II	18	0	3 (16.67)**	12 (66.67)	3 (16.67)*	16.67**

Notes: Data presented as the number (%) of patients. The data were analyzed by the chi-square test;

* P<0.05,

** P<0.01 versus Group I.

Abbreviations: CR, complete response; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; RR, response rate; SD, stable disease.

Figure 5 Changes in the KPS.

Notes: (A)The KPS at 2 months after treatment exhibited significant improvement compared to the score before treatment in both groups. (B) The KPS was significantly greater in group II than in group I after treatment. ^*P<0.05.
Abbreviation: KPS, Karnofsky performance status.

Figure 6 Changes in the biochemical indicators.

Notes: (A) The expression of CEA was lower in group II than in group I at 1 month after treatment. (B) The expression of CA15-3 was lower in group II than in group I at 1 month after treatment. ^*P<0.05.
Abbreviations: CA15-3, cancer antigen 15-3; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.