4.7 Article

Estrogen Receptor Positive Breast Cancer with High Expression of Androgen Receptor has Less Cytolytic Activity and Worse Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy but Better Survival

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20112655

Keywords

AR; androgen receptor; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; NAC; cytolytic activity; GSEA

Funding

  1. NIH [R01CA160688]
  2. National Cancer Institute (NCI) [P30CA016056]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer (BC), the most abundant BC subtype, is notorious for poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The androgen receptor (AR) was reported to support estradiol-mediated ER activity in an in vitro system. Recently, ER-positive BC with fewer tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) was shown to have a better prognosis, opposite to the trend seen with ER-negative BC. We hypothesized that ER-positive BC with high expression of AR will have fewer TILs and an inferior response to NAC, but with a better prognosis. In both TCGA and METABRIC cohorts, AR expression was significantly higher in ER-positive BCs compared to ER-negatives (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively) and it correlated with ER expression (R = 0.630, R = 0.509, respectively). In ER-positive tumors, AR high tumors enriched UV response down (NES = 2.01, p < 0.001), and AR low tumors enriched DNA repair (NES = -2.02, p < 0.001). AR high tumors were significantly associated with procancer regulatory T-cells, and AR low tumors were associated with anticancer immune cells, such as CD4, CD8, and Gamma-Delta T-cells and memory B-cells in ER-positive BC (p < 0.01). Further, cytolytic activity was significantly lower in AR high BC in both cohorts. Finally, AR high tumors had a significantly lower rate of attaining pathological complete response to NAC (GSE22358), but better survival. In conclusion, our results demonstrated that high AR has fewer tumor infiltrating lymphocytes as well as cytolytic activity and an inferior response to NAC, but better survival in ER-positive BC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available