4.1 Article

Androgen Receptor Expression in Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma: Correlation With Clinicopathologic Features

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 5, Pages 420-427

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000353

Keywords

Endometrial stromal sarcoma; Estrogen receptor; Progesterone receptor; Androgen receptor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS) is a rare neoplasm comprising only 0.2% to 1% of all uterine malignancies and occurs in women between 42 and 59 yr of age. ESSs frequently express estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR). However, the published literature contains scant data on the expression and therapeutic/prognostic role of androgen receptor (AR) in ESSs. We undertook this study to characterize the expression of AR along with ER and PR in ESSs and correlate it with clinicopathologic features. The clinical details, slides, and blocks of 25 tumors from 24 patients (September 2010 to February 2016) were retrieved. The diagnosis and grade of ESS were reviewed and immunohistochemistry performed with anti-ER, PR, and AR antibodies. Ages ranged from 18 to 50 yr, with a mean age of 36 yr. Low-grade ESS (LGESS) and high-grade ESS (HGESS) were diagnosed in 15 and 9 patients, respectively. An 18-yr-old woman who initially had LGESS suffered a pelvic recurrence; that exhibited high-grade morphology. Our patients, especially those with HGESS, were much younger compared with published worldwide data. ER, PR, and AR immunoreactivity was observed in 14 (93.3%), 12 (80%), and 11 (73.3%) LGESSs, respectively. This is in contrast to HGESSs, in which 5 (50%) tumors had a triple-negative hormonal profile. AR, like ER and PR, was more frequently expressed in LGESS as compared with HGESS. Whether AR, in addition to ER and PR receptor status, may help guide adjuvant hormonal therapy needs further elucidation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available