Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37099044›Full record

ArticleDiscover oncology2023

Evaluation of predictive and prognostic value of androgen receptor expression in breast cancer subtypes treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Zhendong Shi, Yingxue Liu, Shichao Zhang, Shuanglong Cai, Xu Liu, Jie Meng, Jin Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Discover oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhendong Shi *The Third Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Yingxue Liu *The Third Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Shichao ZhangThe Third Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Shuanglong CaiThe Third Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Xu LiuThe Third Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Jie MengThe Third Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Jin ZhangThe Third Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China. zhangjintjmuch1@163.com.
Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81502306
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeoadjuvant chemotherapy is the standard treatment for local advanced breast cancer administered to shrink tumors and destroy undetected metastatic cells, thereby facilitating subsequent surgery. Previous studies have shown that AR may be used as a prognostic predictor in breast cancers, but its role in neoadjuvant therapy and the relationship with prognosis of different molecular subtypes of breast cancer need to be further explored.

methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 1231 breast cancer patients with complete medical records at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy between January 2018 to December 2021. All the patients were selected for prognostic analysis. The follow-up time ranged from 12 to 60 months. We first analyzed the AR expression in different subtypes of breast cancer and its correlation with clinicopathological features. Meanwhile, the association of AR expression and pCR of different breast cancer subtypes was investigated. Finally, the effect of AR status on the prognosis of different subtypes of breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy was analyzed.

resultsThe positive rates of AR expression in HR + /HER2-, HR + /HER2 +, HR-/HER2 + and TNBC subtypes were 82.5%, 86.9%, 72.2% and 34.6%, respectively. Histological grade III (P = 0.014, OR = 1.862, 95% CI 1.137 to 2.562), ER positive expression (P = 0.002, OR = 0.381, 95% CI 0.102 to 0.754) and HER2 positive expression (P = 0.006, OR = 0.542, 95% CI 0.227 to 0.836) were independent related factors for AR positive expression. AR expression status was associated with pCR rate after neoadjuvant therapy only in subtype of TNBC. AR positive expression was independent protective factor for recurrence and metastasis in HR + /HER2- (P = 0.033, HR = 0.653, 95% CI 0.237 to 0.986) and HR + /HER2 + breast cancer (P = 0.012, HR = 0.803, 95% CI 0.167 to 0.959), but was independent risk factors for recurrence and metastasis in TNBC (P = 0.015, HR = 4.551, 95% CI 2.668 to 8.063). AR positive expression is not an independent predictor of HR-/HER2 + breast cancer.

conclusionsAR expressed the lowest in TNBC, but it could be a potential marker for the prediction of pCR in neoadjuvant therapy. AR negative patients had a higher pCR rate. AR positive expression was an independent risk factor for pCR in TNBC after neoadjuvant therapy (P = 0.017, OR = 2.758, 95% CI 1.564 to 4.013). In HR + /HER2- subtype and in HR + /HER2 + subtype, the DFS rate in AR positive patients and AR negative patients was 96.2% vs 89.0% (P = 0.001, HR = 0.330, 95% CI 0.106 to 1.034) and was 96.0% vs 85.7% (P = 0.002, HR = 0.278, 95% CI 0.082 to 0.940), respectively. However, in HR-/HER2 + and TNBC subtypes, the DFS rate in AR positive patients and AR negative patients was 89.0% vs 95.9% (P = 0.102, HR = 3.211, 95% CI 1.117 to 9.224) and 75.0% vs 93.4% (P < 0.001, HR = 3.706, 95% CI 1.681 to 8.171), respectively. In HR + /HER2- and HR + /HER2 + breast cancer, AR positive patients had a better prognosis, however in TNBC, AR-positive patients have a poor prognosis.

Indexed as

Adjuvant chemotherapyAndrogen receptorBreast cancerDisease free survivalPathological complete response

Identifiers

PMID37099044
PMCPMC10133426
OpenAlexW4367047677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.