About this item:

309 Views | 312 Downloads

Author Notes:

Correspondence: prida@gsu.edu or cgp_rida@yahoo.com (P.R.); raneja@gsu.edu (R.A.); Tel.: +404-413-5417 (R.A.); Fax: +404-413-5301 (R.A.)

Conceptualization: R.A. and P.R.; methodology: S.B. and K.M.; validation, all authors in the manuscript; formal analysis: S.K.; investigation: S.B.; resources: all authors in the manuscript; data curation: all the authors in the manuscript; writing: S.B. and P.R.; review and editing: all the authors in the manuscript; visualization: S.B., P.R., K.M. and R.A.; supervision: R.A.; project administration: R.A.; funding acquisition: R.A.

We thank the Nottingham Health Science Biobank and Breast Cancer Now Tissue Bank and all the centers from each cohort for the provision of tissue samples.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Subject:

Research Funding:

This study was supported by grants to RA from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institute of Health (U01 CA179671 and R01 CA169127).

Keywords:

  • Science & Technology
  • Life Sciences & Biomedicine
  • Oncology
  • androgen receptor
  • triple-negative breast cancer
  • prognosis
  • multi-institutional study
  • EXPRESSION
  • SUBTYPES

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

Show all authors Show less authors

Tools:

Journal Title:

Cancers

Volume:

Volume 11, Number 7

Publisher:

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF

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.

Copyright information:

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Export to EndNote