Julia Y. Tsang

Dr. Julia Y. Tsang


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

6Years (2021-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
23 August 2021 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JLJoshua Jing Xi Li
Joshua Jing Xi Li
JTJulia Y. Tsang
Julia Y. Tsang
GTGary Tse
Gary Tse
The tumor microenvironment (TME) in breast cancer comprises local factors, cancer cells, immune cells and stromal cells of the local and distant tissues. The interaction between cancer cells and their microenvironment plays important roles in tumor proliferation, propagation and response to therapies. There is increasing research in exploring and manipulating the non-cancerous components of the TME for breast cancer treatment. As the TME is now increasingly recognized as a treatment target, its pathologic assessment has become a critical component of breast cancer management. The latest WHO classification of tumors of the breast listed stromal response pattern/fibrotic focus as a prognostic factor and includes recommendations on the assessment of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and PD-1/PD-L1 expression, with therapeutic implications. This review dissects the TME of breast cancer, describes pathologic assessment relevant for prognostication and treatment decision, and details therapeutic options that interacts with and/or exploits the TME in breast cancer.

5 June 2024 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CFCanbin Fang
Canbin Fang
MCMaisy Yuen-chung Cheung
Maisy Yuen-chung Cheung
RCRonald C. Chan
Ronald C. Chan
IPIvan K. Poon
Ivan K. Poon
CLConrad Lee
Conrad Lee
GTGary Tse
Gary Tse
Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) is a key element in the breast tumor microenvironment. CD163 and CD206 have been utilized for TAM identification, but the clinical implications of TAMs identified by these markers have not been thoroughly explored. This study conducted a comparative analysis of CD163 and CD206 TAMs using digital image analysis, focusing on their spatial distribution and prognostic significance in relation to tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). Distinct clinico-pathological and prognostic characteristics were noted between the two types of TAMs. CD163 TAMs were linked to high-grade tumors (p = 0.006), whereas CD206 TAMs were associated with a higher incidence of nodal metastasis (p = 0.033). CD206 TAMs were predominantly found in the stroma, with more cases being stromal CD206-high (sCD206-high) than tumoral CD206-high (tCD206-high) (p = 0.024). Regarding prognostication, patients stratified according to stromal and tumoral densities of CD163 showed different disease-free survival (DFS) time. Specifically, those that were sCD163-low but tCD163-high exhibited the poorest DFS (chi-square = 10.853, p = 0.013). Furthermore, a high sCD163-to-stromal-TILs ratio was identified as an independent predictor of unfavorable survival outcomes (DFS: HR = 3.477, p = 0.018). The spatial distribution and interactions with TILs enhanced the prognostic value of CD163 TAMs, while CD206 TAMs appeared to have limited prognostic utility in breast cancer cases.

13 October 2022 in Journal of Molecular Pathology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JLJoshua Jing Xi Li
Joshua Jing Xi Li
JNJoanna K. M. Ng
Joanna K. M. Ng
CLConrad H. C. Lee
Conrad H. C. Lee
CTCheuk-Yin Tang
Cheuk-Yin Tang
JTJulia Y. Tsang
Julia Y. Tsang
GTGary Tse
Gary Tse
Introduction: Metastatic cancers are frequently detected on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology, and confirmation of metastatic breast cancer often requires immunocytochemistry. Tissue provisioning for FNA specimens is important. In this study, GATA3, gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 (GCDFP15), mammaglobin (MMG), and SOX10 were performed on cell block preparations from aspirates of histologically confirmed metastatic breast cancers. The diagnostic performance of single markers and combinations of these markers were investigated with the aim to construct a tissue-efficient immunopanel. Methodology: Aspirates of metastatic breast cancer with corresponding histology and biomarker (estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), HER2 and ki67) profile were retrieved. ER, GATA3, GCDFP15, MMG and SOX10 immunostains were performed on cell block sections and their expressions were assessed and compared. Results: Immunostaining was performed on a total of 115 aspirates. GATA3 showed the highest expression, followed by MMG, GCDFP15 and SOX10. Twenty-three, five and five cases expressed GATA3, MMG and SOX10 only. The five cases expressing SOX10 only were ER negative, and SOX10 expression was negatively associated with ER (p = 0.001), MMG (p = 0.001), GCDFP15 (p = 0.010) and GATA3 (p = 0.002), whereas GATA3 expression showed positive correlation with ER positivity (p < 0.001). MMG and GCDFP15 showed association with high Ki67 (p < 0.05), and no correlations were found with HER2 expression. Conclusion: In this cohort, GATA3 was the most sensitive single marker. The addition of MMG and SOX10 increases the sensitivity for detection of ER positive and ER negative breast cancers, respectively. These findings support the use of a combination of GATA3/MMG/SOX10 for confirmation of metastatic breast cancer.