4.6 Article

Validation of Androgen Receptor loss as a risk factor for the development of brain metastases from ovarian cancers

Journal

JOURNAL OF OVARIAN RESEARCH
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13048-020-00655-2

Keywords

Ovarian cancer; Brain metastases; Androgen receptor; Immunohistochemistry

Funding

  1. Rete oncologica Piemonte e Valle D'Aosta
  2. FPRC ONLUS 5 per mille 2015 Ministero Salute [357]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Central nervous system (CNS) spreading from epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) is an uncommon but increasing phenomenon. We previously reported in a small series of 11 patients a correlation between Androgen Receptor (AR) loss and localization to CNS. Aims of this study were: to confirm a predictive role of AR loss in an independent validation cohort; to evaluate if AR status impacts on EOC survival. Results We collected an additional 29 cases and 19 controls as validation cohort. In this independent cohort at univariate analysis, cases exhibited lower expression of AR, considered both as continuous (p < 0.001) and as discrete variable (10% cut-off: p < 0.003; Immunoreactive score: p < 0.001). AR negative EOC showed an odds ratio (OR) = 8.33 for CNS dissemination compared with AR positive EOC. Kaplan-Meier curves of the combined dataset, combining data of new validation cohort with the previously published cohort, showed that AR < 10% significantly correlates with worse outcomes (p = 0.005 for Progression Free Survival (PFS) and p = 0.002 for brain PFS (bPFS) respectively). Comparison of AR expression between primary tissue and paired brain metastases in the combined dataset did not show any statistically significant difference. Conclusions We confirmed AR loss as predictive role for CNS involvement from EOC in an independent cohort of cases and controls. Early assessment of AR status could improve clinical management and patients' prognosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available