Prognostic Role of Androgen Receptor in Triple Negative Breast Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Study

• Authors: Shristi Bhattarai, Georgia State University; Sergey Klimov, Georgia State University; Karuna Mittal, Georgia State University; Uma Krishnamurti, Emory University; Xiaoxian Li, Emory University; Gabriela Oprea, Emory University; Ceyda Sonmez Wetherilt, Georgia State University; Ansa Riaz, Georgia State University; Mohammed A. Aleskandarany, University of Nottingham; Andrew R. Green, University of Nottingham; Ian O. Ellis, Georgia State University; Guilherme Cantuaria, Northside Hospital Cancer Institute; Meenakshi Gupta, Piedmont Newnan Hosp; Upender Manne, University of Alabama Birmingham; Johnson Agboola, Georgia State University; Brett Baskovich, University of South Alabama; Emiel A. M. Janssen, Georgia State University; Grace Callagy, Georgia State University; Elaine M. Walsh, Lambe Institute for Translational Research; Anurag Mehta, Georgia State University; Atika Dogra, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre; Tanuja Shet, Georgia State University; Pooja Gajaria, Tata Memorial Hospital; Tiffany Traina, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Haruna A. Nggada, Georgia State University; Abidemi Omonisi, Georgia State University; Saad A. Ahmed, Georgia State University; Emad A. Rakha, Georgia State University; Padmashree Rida, Georgia State University; Ritu Aneja, Georgia State University
• Journal Title: Cancers
• Volume: Volume 11, Number 7
• Publisher: MDPI | 2019-06-26
• Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11070995
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Oncology
• Keywords: Science & Technology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; Oncology; androgen receptor; triple-negative breast cancer; prognosis; multi-institutional study; EXPRESSION; SUBTYPES

Abstract

Background: The androgen receptor (AR) has emerged as a potential therapeutic target for AR-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, conflicting reports regarding AR’s prognostic role in TNBC are putting its usefulness in question. Some studies conclude that AR positivity indicates a good prognosis in TNBC, whereas others suggest the opposite, and some show that AR status has no significant bearing on the patients’ prognosis. Methods: We evaluated the prognostic value of AR in resected primary tumors from TNBC patients from six international cohorts {US (n = 420), UK (n = 239), Norway (n = 104), Ireland (n = 222), Nigeria (n = 180), and India (n = 242); total n = 1407}. All TNBC samples were stained with the same anti-AR antibody using the same immunohistochemistry protocol, and samples with ≥1% of AR-positive nuclei were deemed AR-positive TNBCs. Results: AR status shows population-specific patterns of association with patients’ overall survival after controlling for age, grade, population, and chemotherapy. We found AR-positive status to be a marker of good prognosis in US and Nigerian cohorts, a marker of poor prognosis in Norway, Ireland and Indian cohorts, and neutral in UK cohort. Conclusion: AR status, on its own, is not a reliable prognostic marker. More research to investigate molecular subtype composition among the different cohorts is warranted.