Introduction

Breast cancer is a complex disease associated with high morbidity and mortality rates [1]. It is classified into triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), hormone receptor positive (HR +) with estrogen (ER) and/or progesterone (PR) receptor, and human epidermal receptor 2 positive (HER2 +) [2]. Compared with HR + subtype, which is characterized by low tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) infiltration, TNBC and HER2 + subtypes are associated with high infiltration of TILs [3, 4]. Notably, higher TIL levels are associated with improved prognosis and decreased risk of relapse and death [5, 6]. Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapies targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1), programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) have produced enormous clinical efficacy in multiple cancer patients [7]. Increasing studies exhibit that ICB has a clinical response against advanced breast cancer [8,9,10]. Unfortunately, only a small proportion of patients (less than 20%) with breast cancer can get benefit from ICB therapy [8]. Thus, how to surmount the resistance to immunotherapy and improve clinical efficacy in breast cancer is worth further exploration.

Multiple factors are correlated with therapeutic efficacy of ICB in breast cancer, including the degree of cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) infiltration, tumor mutation burden, the expression level of immune checkpoint and immunosuppressive factors in tumor microenvironment (TME) [9, 10]. Increasing evidence indicates that immunological composition and functional status of TME have a critical role in ICB resistance [10, 11]. The infiltration of immune cells, such as T cell, myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC), and tumor-associated macrophage (TAM) in TME, can affect therapeutic efficacy of ICB therapy. Tumor cells can co-evolve with immune cells and evolve a variety of strategies to escape immune destruction [12,13,14]. T-helper 2 (Th2) cell, a vital component of TME, plays a central role in type-2 immune responses (“humoral immunity”) and up-regulates antibody production to fight extracellular tissues [15, 16]. Th2 cell-derived cytokines including interleukin-4 (IL-4), IL-5, and IL-13 underlie the inappropriate immune response, and lead to anaphylactic diseases such as asthma, chronic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and certain types of gut disorders [17,18,19]. It is indicated that Th2 cell plays a controversial role in cancer development. It is shown that high infiltration of Th2 cell could cause the epigenetic reprogramming of tumor cells and suppress breast tumorigenesis [20]. Additionally, Th2 cells are positively involved in tumor regression by triggering an inflammatory immune response [21]. In contrast, several lines of evidence support that the initiation of local Th2 inflammation could foster an immunosuppressive microenvironment and aid tumor progression [22,23,24]. Therefore, the relationship between Th2 and immune evasion in breast cancer remains enigmatic, which needs further in-depth investigation.

Allergies are abnormal, Th2-biased immune responses against innocuous environmental antigens [25]. Our previous study found that the allergy mediator histamine could suppress tumor growth, and induce immunotherapy resistance via binding to histamine receptor H1 on macrophages, and anti-histamine therapy could synergistically enhance efficacy of ICB therapy [Full size image

Considering adverse effects may cause intolerance in therapy procedures and negatively affect its clinical efficacy, we next evaluated the adverse effects of IPD in the mouse models [43, 44]. The H&E staining showed that solid organ injury of breast cancer was not enhanced after IPD treatment. Compared with ICB therapy, IPD would not increase the immune-related adverse events associated with anti-CTLA-4 in combination therapy (Additional file 7: fig. S7A). Moreover, compared with vehicle-treated group, IPD treatment did not exacerbate the liver damage and impair renal and cardiac functions, and had no haematotoxin effect and bone marrow suppression based on blood test (Additional file 7: Fig. S7B, C). Together, our results implied that related adverse event was no presented after administration of IPD in vivo.