Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 11879

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2026 | Month : September | Volume : 20 | Issue : 9 | Page : EC21 - EC25 Full Version

Association of Residual Stromal Tumour Infiltrating Lymphocytes with Pathological Response following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study


Published: September 1, 2026 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2026/91427.24396
K Hari Krishna, MS Supreetha, A Hemalatha, PN Sreeramulu

1. Junior Resident-3, Department of Pathology, Sri Deveraj URS Medical College, Kolar, Karnataka, India. 2. Professor, Department of Pathology, Sri Deveraj URS Medical College, Kolar, Karnataka, India. 3. Professor, Department of Pathology, Sri Deveraj URS Medical College, Kolar, Karnataka, India. 4. Professor and Director, Department of General Surgery, Sri Deveraj URS Medical College, Kolar, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. MS Supreetha,
Professor, Department of Pathology, Sri Deveraj URS Medical College and Hospital, Quarters, Kolar-563103, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: drsupreethavvv.2009@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Tumour Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TILs) are important indicators of the host immune response and established predictive biomarkers primarily in Triple-Negative Breast Cancers (TNBC) and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) - positive Breast Cancers (BC), but not across all BC subtypes. However, the biological and clinical significance of residual stromal TILs following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NACT) remains incompletely understood. Unlike pre-treatment TILs, residual stromal TILs reflect the post-treatment tumour immune microenvironment and may provide additional information on pathological response and residual disease burden. Evaluating residual stromal TILs on routine Haematoxylin and Eosin (H&E)-stained sections offers a simple, reproducible, and cost-effective approach that could enhance routine pathological assessment.

Aim: To evaluate the distribution of residual stromal TILs in post-neoadjuvant surgical resection specimens and its association with pathological response.

Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Department of Pathology, Sri Deveraj URS Medical College, Kolar, Karnataka, India, from January 2021 to January 2025. A total of 47 patients with histopathologically confirmed BC treated with NACT followed by surgery. Residual stromal TILs were evaluated in residual invasive tumour on post-treatment resection specimens using H&E sections, in accordance with International Immuno-oncology Biomarker Working Group recommendations, and categorised as low (<10%), intermediate (10-50%), or high (>50%). Pathological response was assessed using the Miller-Payne Grading System (MPGS) and Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) classification. Associations between residual stromal TIL categories and treatment response were analysed using Fisher’s-exact test and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.

Results: Among the 47 patients, low residual stromal TILs were identified in 17 (36.2%), intermediate residual stromal TILs in 17 (36.2%), and high residual stromal TILs in 13 (27.6%). Pathological Complete Response (pCR) was achieved in 4 (8.5%) patients. No statistically significant association was observed between residual stromal TIL category and pCR (Fisher’s-exact test, p=0.36). Residual stromal TIL category demonstrated a moderate positive correlation with MPGS (Spearman’s ρ=0.56, p<0.001) and a moderate negative correlation with RCB class (Spearman’s ρ=-0.48, p=0.002). Notably, higher residual stromal TIL levels were observed more frequently among patients demonstrating better pathological response.

Conclusion: Residual stromal TILs demonstrated significant associations with graded pathological response following NACT but not with pCR. Routine assessment of residual stromal TILs may complement pathological response evaluation, although larger prospective studies are needed to establish their clinical utility.

Keywords

Immune biomarkers, Residual cancer burden, Tumour microenvironment

The BC is the most common malignancy worldwide and comprises a heterogeneous group of tumours with variable biology and treatment response (1). NACT is an integral component of treatment, particularly in locally advanced BC, as it facilitates tumour downstaging, improves operability, and enables in-vivo assessment of therapeutic response (2). pCR is an established surrogate marker of favourable long-term outcomes, especially in triple-negative and HER2-positive BCs (3). However, a considerable proportion of patients fail to achieve pCR and are left with residual disease, which exhibits marked heterogeneity in treatment response and prognosis. Identifying reliable biomarkers within residual tumours is therefore essential for improving post-treatment risk stratification and guiding subsequent management.

The TILs have been extensively studied as indicators of the host immune response within the tumour microenvironment and have emerged as important prognostic and predictive biomarkers in BC (4). Among the immune components, TILs evaluated on routine H&E - stained sections have demonstrated excellent reproducibility and clinical significance (5). Several studies have shown that pre-treatment stromal TILs are associated with higher rates of pCR and improved survival, particularly in triple-negative and HER2-positive BCs (6),(7),(8).

Residual sTILs differ biologically from pre-treatment TILs because they reflect the post-treatment immune microenvironment after chemotherapy rather than the baseline host immune response. NACT induces immunogenic cell death, enhances tumour antigen presentation, and promotes recruitment of cytotoxic lymphocytes while simultaneously selecting resistant tumour clones. Consequently, residual stromal TILs may better represent the interaction between chemotherapy-induced immune activation and residual tumour burden, explaining their significant association with graded pathological response observed in the present study.

Despite these advances, the biological and clinical significance of residual stromal TILs following completion of NACT remains incompletely understood. Unlike pre-treatment TILs, residual stromal TILs reflect the post-treatment immune landscape and may capture the dynamic interaction between chemotherapy-associated alterations in the immune microenvironment and residual tumour cells. Emerging evidence suggests that residual stromal TILs may provide additional information regarding residual disease burden and treatment response; however, available studies are limited, their findings remain inconsistent, and standardised evidence supporting their routine clinical application is still evolving, particularly in resource-constrained settings and Asian populations (9),(10),(11),(12),(13).

Furthermore, most published studies have primarily focused on pCR as the principal endpoint, whereas the relationship of residual stromal TILs with graded pathological response assessed using both the Miller-Payne Grading System (MPGS) and Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) classification has been inadequately explored. This represents an important knowledge gap because MPGS and RCB provide a more comprehensive assessment of tumour regression than the binary pCR outcome alone. Understanding this relationship is clinically important because residual stromal TIL assessment may improve post-NACT risk stratification and complement conventional pathological response evaluation using a simple, cost-effective biomarker that can be assessed on routine H&E-stained sections (5).

Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate residual stromal TILs in post-NACT breast carcinoma specimens and to determine their association with pathological response using both the MPGS and RCB classification.

Material and Methods

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Department of Pathology, Sri Deveraj URS Medical College, Kolar, Karnataka, India, from January 2021 to January 2025. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) of SDUMC with Approval Reference No: SDUAHER/R&D/CEC/SDUMC-PG/198/NF/2025-26.

Sample size: Since all eligible cases during the study period were included, consecutive sampling was performed and formal sample size calculation was not applicable.

Inclusion criteria: Patients with histologically confirmed invasive breast carcinoma diagnosed on pre-treatment core biopsy who subsequently received NACT followed by surgical resection; H&E slides for assessment of both residual TILs and pathological response were included.

Exclusion criteria: Patients were excluded if radiotherapy had been administered before surgery, or if recurrent or secondary metastatic disease was already present at the time of diagnosis.

Study Procedure

Patients received standard Institutional NACT protocols, including Anthracycline-Taxane based regimens with HER2-targeted therapy wherever indicated.

Assessment of Tumour Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TILs): Residual sTILs were evaluated on post-NACT-treated surgical specimens using routine H&E-stained sections, in accordance with the International TILs Working Group guidelines, with assessment performed by examining the entire invasive tumour area at low and high magnification. Residual sTILs were evaluated within the borders of invasive residual carcinoma across the entire tumor area, excluding areas of necrosis, fibrosis unrelated to tumor, ductal carcinoma in situ and in cases of complete pathological response/regression, TILs may be evaluated, for research purposes, within the area of regression. Residual sTILs were quantified as the percentage of stromal area occupied by mononuclear inflammatory cells. Based on the working group’s previous literature on percentage involvement, TILs were divided into low (<10%), intermediate (10-50%), and high (>50%) (5).

Assessment of pathological response by MPGS and RCB: Post-NACT, the surgical specimens underwent pathological response evaluation using MPGS. MPGS uses a five-grade scale based on the percentage reduction in tumour cells, with Grade 1 {No change or minimal change in tumour cells (<10% reduction)} to Grade 5 {No identifiable residual invasive malignant cells although DCIS may be present (pCR)} (12). pCR means there are no residual invasive cancer cells in the breast and axillary lymph nodes (ypT0/ypN0), which is in line with the usual pathological definitions (14). The rest of the cases were all categorised as non pCR.

The RCB quantifies post-treatment residual disease by integrating primary tumour dimensions, invasive cellularity, nodal involvement, and size of nodal metastases (15). RCB was determined according to the methodology described by Symmans WF et al., using the official online RCB calculator hosted by The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and categorised as RCB-0 (pCR), RCB-I (minimal), RCB-II (moderate), and RCB-III (extensive residual disease) (15),(16).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

As this was an exploratory retrospective cohort study, no sample size was calculated. Demographic and pathological features were summarised using descriptive statistics. The association between different categories of sTILs and pathological response was evaluated by Fisher’s-exact test (categorical associations) and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (associations between ordinal variables). These non parametric methods are appropriate given the ordinal nature of TILs, MPGS, and RCB data and the small sample size. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS) version 29.0, and p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The present study evaluated the demographic and clinical characteristics of 47 patients with BC who underwent surgery following NACT, with a particular emphasis on the distribution of residual sTILs and their relationship to pathological response along with demographic variables.

The mean age of the cohort was 50.9±9.9 years, with a predominance of patients aged >50 years, 25 (53.2%). Tumours were more frequently right-sided 28 (59.6%). Most patients 37 (78.7%) received four cycles of NACT, with fewer undergoing extended regimens. These baseline characteristics were descriptive and were not evaluated for independent associations with treatment outcomes (Table/Fig 1).

Most of the patients, 43 (91.5%) had residual disease, reflecting predominant non pCR outcomes (Table/Fig 2). The association between residual sTILs and response to NACT was analysed using Fisher’s-exact test. pCR was observed in intermediate and high stromal TIL categories, where four patients achieved pCR. Although pCR percentages were observed in intermediate and high TIL groups, the association was not statistically significant (Fisher’s-exact test, p=0.36) in the present study due to the limited sample size (Table/Fig 2).

Low sTIL levels (<10%) (Table/Fig 3) were identified in 17 patients (36.2%), intermediate sTIL levels (10 to 50%) (Table/Fig 4) in 17 patients (36.2%), and high sTIL levels (>50%) (Table/Fig 5) in 13 patients (27.6%). Only 4 (8.5%) patients achieved pCR, indicating a low complete treatment response rate.

Assessment of pathological response using the MPGS showed that Grade 3 response was the most common, observed in 13 patients (27.66%), and assessment of pathological response using the RCB scoring showed that RCB-III response was the most common, observed in 24 patients (51.06%) (Table/Fig 6).

Higher MPGS grades were associated with increasing stromal TIL levels, with low TILs predominating in lower grades (Grades 1-2) and high TILs more frequent in higher grades (Grades 3-5), suggesting a positive correlation between pathological response grade and immune infiltration. This distribution shows a progressive increase in residual sTIL density from low to high with increasing MPS grade. The present study demonstrated a significant association between the grade of MPGS and the distribution of residual sTIL where Fisher’s-exact test demonstrated a statistically significant association (p=0.013). Furthermore, Spearman’s rank correlation showed a moderate positive correlation between residual sTIL levels and MPGS (ρ=0.56, p<0.001), indicating that higher residual sTIL density was associated with greater pathological tumour regression (Table/Fig 7).

Intermediate-to-high residual sTILs were more common in lower RCB grade (RCB-0/1) and less common in higher grade (RCB-3). Fisher’s-exact test demonstrated a significant association between residual sTIL category and RCB class (χ2=14.8, p=0.002). Spearman’s rank correlation analysis revealed a moderate negative correlation between residual stromal TIL levels and RCB class (ρ=-0.48, p=0.002), indicating that higher residual stromal TIL density was associated with lower residual disease burden (Table/Fig 8).

Although residual stromal TILs were not significantly associated with the binary endpoint of pCR, significant positive monotonic associations were observed with ordinal pathological response systems (MPGS and RCB).

Discussion

Residual sTILs represent the host immune response within the post-treatment tumour microenvironment and have gained increasing attention as potential biomarkers following NACT. The present study evaluated residual stromal TILs in breast carcinoma following NACT and examined their association with pathological response using the MPGS and RCB.

The study population predominantly comprised women older than 50 years, with most patients receiving four cycles of NACT. Residual stromal TILs demonstrated considerable heterogeneity, with low and intermediate TIL densities each observed in 36.2% of patients. This variability is consistent with previous reports indicating that the immune microenvironment differs substantially among BCs and may be modified by chemotherapy. Standardised assessment of residual stromal TILs on routine H&E-stained sections, as recommended by the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group, provides a reproducible and practical approach for routine pathological evaluation (5).

Only four patients (8.5%) achieved pCR. Although pCR occurred exclusively in the intermediate and high stromal TIL groups, the association between stromal TIL categories and pCR was not statistically significant (Fisher’s-exact test, p=0.36). This finding should be interpreted cautiously because the small sample size and limited number of pCR cases reduce the statistical power to detect differences. Similar observations have been reported in studies demonstrating that the predictive value of TILs varies according to molecular subtype and sample size (14),(17).

Conversely, residual stromal TILs had a statistically significant correlation with both MPGS and RCB. An elevation in stromal TIL density was positively associated with enhanced MPGS grades, but a negative link was noted with RCB classes, suggesting that tumours with increased immune infiltration typically had improved pathological regression and less residual disease burden. In contrast to the dichotomous outcome of pCR, both MPGS and RCB assess the entire range of treatment responses, which could elucidate their more robust correlation with residual stromal TILs in our study (15),(16).

These observations are consistent with previous studies demonstrating that increased stromal TILs are associated with enhanced pathological response following NACT. Denkert C et al., reported that higher TIL levels were associated with improved response to NACT, particularly in triple-negative and HER2-positive BCs (4). However, their pooled analysis primarily evaluated stromal TILs on pretreatment biopsy specimens, whereas the present study assessed residual stromal TILs in post-NACT surgical specimens. Residual stromal TILs represent the immune microenvironment after chemotherapy-induced tumour remodelling and therefore provide different biological information from baseline TIL assessment.

Similarly, Luen SJ et al., evaluated residual disease sTILs after NACT in triple-negative BC and demonstrated prognostic significance (14). Our findings are in agreement with their observation that residual stromal TILs remain clinically informative after treatment. However, unlike their study, which evaluated survival outcomes, the present study assessed pathological response using the MPGS and RCB classification. The absence of a significant association with pCR in the present cohort may be attributable to the relatively small sample size, low pCR rate, inclusion of all molecular subtypes, and differences in study endpoints.

Likewise, Li S et al., reported, through a meta-analysis, that higher TIL levels were associated with improved pCR and survival following NACT (17). Differences between their findings and the present study may reflect methodological heterogeneity, including assessment of pretreatment versus residual stromal TILs, molecular subtype distribution, treatment protocols, and statistical power.

The concordance observed between higher MPGS grades and lower RCB classes also supports the biological relationship between tumour regression and residual disease burden. Since both grading systems evaluate treatment response using different pathological parameters, their significant association with stromal TILs suggests that immune infiltration is more closely related to the overall degree of tumour regression than to complete pathological response alone. This distinction is important because many patients demonstrate substantial tumour regression without achieving pCR (18),(19).

El Bairi K et al., emphasised the growing importance of immune biomarkers in precision oncology and future immunotherapeutic strategies (20). Although immunotherapy-related biomarkers were not evaluated in the present study, the observed heterogeneity of residual stromal TILs supports the concept that routine immune profiling may provide clinically relevant information regarding the post-treatment tumour microenvironment. However, the present findings should not be interpreted as evidence of immunotherapy response and require validation in prospective studies incorporating molecular immune biomarkers.

In TNBC, stromal TILs are established prognostic and predictive biomarkers, with higher sTIL levels associated with improved pathological response and survival following NACT. Consistent with this, da Costa NC et al., reported that 55% of residual TNBCs exhibited high stromal TIL levels following NACT (p≤0.0001), supporting chemotherapy-induced immune remodelling within the tumour microenvironment (21). Similarly, Ciarka A et al., highlighted that residual immune biomarkers remain clinically relevant for post-treatment risk stratification in patients with residual TNBC (22).

Limitation(s)

Residual stromal TIL assessment is a promising, readily available biomarker that may complement pathological evaluation, but it remains investigational and requires prospective validation. This retrospective, single-centre exploratory study was limited by a small sample size, few pCR events, absence of multivariable analysis, lack of molecular subtype classification and baseline TIL assessment, and no survival follow-up. These limitations restricted assessment of associations with pCR, dynamic immune changes after NACT, and the prognostic significance of residual stromal TILs. Larger multicentre studies incorporating paired pre- and post-NACT TIL evaluation, molecular characterisation, and long-term survival outcomes are needed to establish its clinical relevance.

Conclusion

Residual TILs demonstrated heterogeneous distribution in breast carcinoma following NACT and were associated with favourable graded pathological response assessed using the MPGS and RCB classification. Assessment of residual stromal TILs on routine H&E-stained sections may complement conventional post-neoadjuvant pathological evaluation by providing a simple, reproducible, and cost-effective measure of the post-treatment tumour immune microenvironment. However, larger prospective multicentric studies incorporating molecular subtype stratification, paired pre- and post-treatment TILs assessment, and long-term survival outcomes are required before routine clinical implementation can be recommended.

References

1.
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-49.[crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2007;94(10):1189-200.[crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164-72.[crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Denkert C, von Minckwitz G, Darb-Esfahani S, Lederer B, Heppner BI, Weber KE, et al. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and prognosis in different subtypes of breast cancer: A pooled analysis of 3771 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):40-50.[crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Dieci MV, Radosevic-Robin N, Fineberg S, van den Eynden G, Ternes N, Penault-Llorca F, et al. Update on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer, including recommendations to assess TILs in residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy and in carcinoma in situ: A report of the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group on Breast Cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2018;52(Pt 2):16-25.[crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Loi S, Sirtaine N, Piette F, Salgado R, Viale G, Van Eenoo F, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in a phase III randomized adjuvant breast cancer trial in node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(7):860-67.[crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Denkert C, Loibl S, Noske A, Roller M, Müller BM, Komor M, et al. Tumour- associated lymphocytes as an independent predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):105-13.[crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Adams S, Gray RJ, Demaria S, Goldstein L, Perez EA, Shulman LN, et al. Prognostic value of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancers from two phase III randomized adjuvant breast cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):2959-66.[crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Denkert C, von Minckwitz G, Brase JC, Sinn BV, Gade S, Kronenwett R, et al. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without carboplatin in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive and triple-negative primary breast cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(9):983-91.[crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Pruneri G, Vingiani A, Denkert C. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in early breast cancer. Breast. 2018;37:207-14.[crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Salgado R, Denkert C, Campbell C, Savas P, Nuciforo P, Aura C, et al. Tumour- infiltrating lymphocytes and breast cancer: Clinical utility and future directions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2023;115(1):01-09.
12.
Ogston KN, Miller ID, Payne S, Hutcheon AW, Sarkar TK, Smith I, et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: Prognostic significance and survival. Breast. 2003;12(5):320-27.[crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Issa-Nummer Y, Loibl S, von Minckwitz G, Denkert C. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer: A new predictor for responses to therapy. Oncoimmunology. 2014;3(3):e27926.[crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Luen SJ, Salgado R, Dieci MV, Vingiani A, Curigliano G, Gould RE, et al. Prognostic implications of residual disease tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and residual cancer burden in triple-negative breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(2):236-42.[crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, Rajan R, Kuerer H, Valero V, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(28):4414-22.[crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Residual cancer burden calculator. Houston (TX): MD Anderson Cancer Center; 2020. Available from: https://www3.mdanderson.org/app/medcalc/index.cfm? pagename=jsconvert3.
17.
Li S, Zhang Y, Zhang P, Xue S, Chen Y, Sun L, et al. Predictive and prognostic values of tumour infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A meta-analysis. Breast. 2022;66:97-109.[crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Ul Ain N, Ishaq S, Islam MK, Badar Q, Chaudhry K, Adil T, et al. Association of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) with pathological complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer. Cureus. 2025;17(11):e96076.[crossref]
19.
Zhu Y, Tzoras E, Matikas A, Bergh J, Valachis A, Zerdes I, et al. Expression patterns and prognostic implications of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes dynamics in early breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2022;12:999843.[crossref] [PubMed]
20.
El Bairi K, Haynes HR, Blackley E, Fineberg S, Shear J, Turner S, et al. The tale of TILs in breast cancer: A report from the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2021;7(1):150.[crossref] [PubMed]
21.
da Costa NC, Fernandes ACP, Damin APS. Prognostic relevance of increased tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in residual TNBC following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2025;25(1):1856.[crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Ciarka A, Pia¸tek M, Pe¸ ksa R, Kunc M, Senkus E. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: Prognostic and predictive significance across molecular subtypes. Biomedicines. 2024;12(4):763.[crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2026/91427.24396

Date of Submission: Jun 26, 2026
Date of Peer Review: Jul 11, 2026
Date of Acceptance: Aug 06, 2026
Date of Publishing: Sep 01, 2026

Author declaration:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. No

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jul 10, 2026
• Manual Googling: Aug 01, 2026
• iThenticate Software: Aug 04, 2026 (3%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 7

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com