Usage Information
Abstract
Immunotherapy has revolutionized the therapeutic landscape for many cancers, but its application in solid tumors has lagged. There is now evidence that immunotherapy can improve outcomes in triple-negative breast cancer, but hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer has traditionally been considered immunologically cold. However, emerging evidence challenges this binary paradigm, suggesting that a biologically relevant subset of HR+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) tumors exhibit meaningful immunogenic features and clinically relevant sensitivity to immune-based treatment. In this Review we summarize the current understanding of immunogenicity and clinical use of immune-based treatments across breast cancer subtypes. We argue for a broader view of a spectrum of breast cancer immunogenicity and highlight the importance of host factors, including parity and lactation history, in shaping antitumor immunity. Improved identification of immunologically active subsets and deeper mechanistic insight will be essential to expand the therapeutic benefit of immunotherapy to broader patient cohorts and to refine care of patients with breast cancer.
Authors
Jasmine Kay, Julia R. Dixon-Douglas, Michael A. Harris, Courtney T. van Geelen, Sherene Loi
Usage data is cumulative from October 2026 through October 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 1,769 | 0 |
| 610 | 0 | |
| Figure | 430 | 0 |
| Table | 238 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 168 | 0 |
| Totals | 3,215 | 0 |
| Total Views | 3,215 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)