Immune-metabolic crosstalk in the pre-metastatic lung niche of breast cancer: challenges and therapeutic opportunities


Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor among women. Distant metastasis, particularly to the lungs, leads to low survival rates.Clinical follow-up reveals that a significant proportion of patients develop metastasis 5–10 years after diagnosis, indicating that metastatic planning occurs very early. In a modern extension of the “seed-soil” paradigm, the represents a susceptible ecological state established in target organs prior to the arrival of circulating tumor cells. Growing evidence indicates that the primary tumor pre-treats the lungs via soluble mediators, extracellular vesicles, and metabolic cues, increasing vascular permeability and remodeling the matrix to generate an immunosuppressive, metabolically dysregulated Pre-metastatic niche( PMN ) . Crucially, immune and metabolic programs interlock in a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop to sustain colonization. Within this immunometabolic feedback model framework, we synthesized common mechanisms, delineated subtype-specific biases (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2 ⁺ , TNBC), and mapped therapeutic opportunities. We highlight actionable targets (MCT1/4, CD39/CD73-A2A, IDO1-AHR, CCR2/CSF1R), propose “ strong-weak ” combinations stratified on subtype frameworks, and discuss translational challenges including standardized readouts and early intervention windows. This framework provides a manageable pathway for preventing and intervening early in breast cancer lung metastasis. This narrative review may be of considerable value to researchers and clinicians working on cancer metastasis—particularly cancer biologists and translational scientists in breast cancer, as well as medical oncologists, pathologists, and methodologists focused on PMN biology and immunometabolic targeting.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].