ArticleBMJ public health2026
Impact of androgen receptor on triple negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analytic study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing the prognostic role of androgen receptor expression in non-metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the prognostic impact of androgen receptor (AR) protein expression on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar and Web of Science (1 January 2000-30 November 2024). Eligibility criteria: Studies assessing AR protein expression in tumour tissue from female TNBC patients using immunohistochemistry and reporting multivariable HRs with 95% CIs for DFS and/or OS were eligible. Data extraction and synthesis: Screening, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted using the DerSimonian-Laird method with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment. Subgroup, meta-regression and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses explored heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and Egger's test. Study quality was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Results: 11 studies involving 4446 patients were included; AR was expressed in 1261 (28.4%). AR positivity showed a non-significant trend towards improved DFS (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; p=0.07) and OS (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.18; p=0.20). Subgroup analyses demonstrated significant DFS benefits in studies with ≤5 years' follow-up (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.10; p=0.03) and in upper-middle-income countries (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.83; p=0.01). Meta-regression identified AR cut-off (≥5%) as a significant moderator (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.41; p<0.0001), explaining 31.6% of between-study heterogeneity. No significant publication bias was detected. Conclusion: In TNBC, AR expression appears to confer short-term DFS benefit but not improved OS or longer-term outcomes. Although significance was observed only in certain subgroups, AR status may have clinical value and warrants further investigation using standardised assessment methods. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023447385.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.