4.4 Review

Androgen Receptor Expression and Outcomes in Early Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djt319

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Mexico [214638]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The androgen receptor (AR) is expressed frequently in breast cancer, but its prognostic significance is unclear. Preclinical data suggest that expression of AR may modify clinical outcomes in early breast cancer with improved prognosis in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease and poorer prognosis in ER-negative disease. Methods A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify studies published between 1946 and July 2012 and to explore the association between AR expression and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in women diagnosed with early breast cancer. The odds ratios (OR) for OS and DFS at 3 and 5 years were calculated and then weighted and pooled in a meta-analysis with Mantel-Haenszel random-effect modeling. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Nineteen studies with a total of 7693 women were included. AR expression was documented in 60.5% of patients. ER-positive tumors were more likely to express AR- than ER-negative tumors (74.8% vs 31.8%, chi(2) P < .001). Compared with tumors without AR expression, those expressing AR were associated with improved OS at both 3 and 5 years (OR = 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.39 to 0.58, P < .001; and OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.56, P < .001). The absolute differences in the probability of OS at 3 and 5 years were 6.7% (95% CI = 3.5% to 9.8%) and 13.5% (95% CI = 7.5% to 19.6%), respectively. Results for 3- and 5-year DFS were similar. Coexpression of the ER did not influence OS at 3 or at 5 years. Conclusions Expression of AR in women with breast cancer is associated with better OS and DFS irrespective of coexpression of ER.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available