4.5 Article

Prognostic Relevance of Androgen Receptor Detection in Operable Breast Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 98, 期 7, 页码 551-558

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.21156

关键词

androgen receptor; operable breast cancer; steroid receptors; mitotic activity index; quantitative immunohistochemistry; prognosis

资金

  1. Western Norwegian Health Authorities [911166]
  2. The Norwegian Cancer Society
  3. L. Meltzer Foundation
  4. O. Mjalands Foundation
  5. Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
  6. University of Stavanger, Norway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: Androgen receptor (AR) is relevant for prognostication in breast cancer. Different determination methods and Cutoff levels hamper interpretation and comparisons of studies. Long-term prognostic evaluation of different AR assays in patients comprising operable breast cancers is scarce. Methods: AR wits evaluated in 120 primary tumors using the dextran-coated charcoal method (charc-AR), and quantitative immunohistochemistry (IHC) on whole sections (WS) and tissue microarrays (TMA). Nuclear and cytoplasmic-AR localization wits determined, and the prognostic importance of AR assays was assessed. Comparisons and correlations with the mitotic activity index (MAT), estrogen receptor (ER alpha), progesterone receptor (PR), HER-2, and histological grade (WHO I-III) were made. Results: Nuclear-AR in WS, but not charc-AR, strongly correlated with MAI (P=0.001). However, prognostic information appeared in Univariate Survival analyses only. Nuclear-AR in TMA was not prognostic. Charc-AR was independent prognostic in node positives both for relapse free survival (RFS) and breast cancer specific Survival (BCSS). Both charc-AR and IHC cytoplasmic-AR provided independent prognostic survival information for BCSS in women <55 years. Conclusion: Methods that can delect AR localized in the cytoplasm yield important prognostic information, and further Studies in patients with operable breast. cancer are warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据