Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer · October 1, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background Combining immunotherapy with endocrine therapy and/or chemotherapy promotes prognosis in patients with estrogen receptor-positive/HER2-negative (ER + HER2 − ) breast cancer; however, the unclear underlying mechanisms limit their widespread application in clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate how ER signaling regulates antitumor immunity and influences responses to chemoimmunotherapy. Methods We evaluated pathological complete response rates between ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer patients across internal and external cohorts treated with immunotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Mechanistic studies were conducted to explore the crosstalk between ER and immunogenic cell death (ICD) through high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) SUMOylation. The therapeutic potential of chemoimmunotherapy regimens was assessed using immunocompetent mouse models of ER + breast cancer. Results Patients with ER − breast cancer had higher pathological complete response rates after immunotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with those with ER + breast cancer in both internal and external cohorts. Enhanced immune responses were observed in ER − breast cancer after chemotherapy, which was attributed to the induction of ICD via the release of HMGB1. Mechanistically, ER inhibits HMGB1 release by directly interacting with the HMG Box B domain and suppressing its SUMOylation at the K114 site, thereby suppressing the antitumor immune response. Conclusions Therapeutically, combining ER antagonist with chemotherapy potentiated the efficacy of PD-1 blockade through HMGB1 in an immunocompetent mice model. These findings provide new mechanistic insights and clinical strategies for addressing immunotherapy resistance in ER + breast cancer patients.