Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Ultrasound | Original Article

Correlation of androgen receptor with ultrasound, clinicopathological features and clinical outcomes in breast cancer

Authors: Xudong Zhang, Hao Cui, Nana Hu, Peng Han, Wei Fan, Panting Wang, Xiaoxuan Zuo, Dantong Zhao, He Huang, Shuo Li, Hanqing Kong, Fuhui Peng, Jiawei Tian, Lei Zhang

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to explore whether there is an association between androgen receptor (AR) expression and ultrasound, clinicopathological features and prognosis of breast cancer.

Methods

A total of 141 breast cancer patients were included in this retrospective study. AR expression was analyzed by immunohistochemistry. The images of B-mode, color Doppler and strain elastography from 104 patients were collected continuously, and the corresponding ultrasound characteristics were obtained. The differences in ultrasound and clinicopathological features in different AR status were analyzed. Progression-free survival (PFS) of patients was obtained through up to 90 months of follow-up; then, the effect of AR on PFS was analyzed. Subsequently, a nomogram was constructed to predict the AR status. The predictive accuracy was calculated using C-index.

Results

The positive expression of AR (AR +) was associated with lower histological grade (p = 0.034) and lower Ki-67 level (p = 0.029). Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) had the lowest probability of AR + (p < 0.001). The AR + group mostly showed unsmooth margin (p < 0.001), posterior acoustic shadowing (p = 0.002) and higher elasticity score (p = 0.022) on ultrasound. The echo pattern of most tumors with AR + was heterogeneous (p = 0.024) in Luminal A subtype. AR + could be a sign of a better prognosis in overall breast cancer (p < 0.001), as well as in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression and Luminal B subtypes (p = 0.001 and 0.025). The nomogram showed relatively reliable performance with a C-index of 0.799.

Conclusion

Our research demonstrated that AR expression was closely related to ultrasound, clinicopathological features and prognosis of breast cancer.

Available only for authorised users

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71:209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660CrossRefPubMed

Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS et al (2011) Strategies for subtypes–dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 22:1736–1747. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr304CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dietze EC, Sistrunk C, Miranda-Carboni G, O’Regan R, Seewaldt VL (2015) Triple-negative breast cancer in African-American women: disparities versus biology. Nat Rev Cancer 15:248–254. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3896CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Yu Q, Niu Y, Liu N et al (2011) Expression of androgen receptor in breast cancer and its significance as a prognostic factor. Ann Oncol 22:1288–1294. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq586CrossRefPubMed

Vesin P, Cattan D (1975) Epithelial cancer and monoclonal immunoglobulins. Sem Hop 51:817–821PubMed

Huang R, Han J, Liang X et al (2017) Androgen receptor expression and Bicalutamide antagonize androgen receptor inhibit beta-catenin transcription complex in estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer. Cell Physiol Biochem 43:2212–2225. https://doi.org/10.1159/000484300CrossRefPubMed

Gucalp A, Traina TA (2017) The androgen receptor: is it a promising target? Ann Surg Oncol 24:2876–2880. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5961-9CrossRefPubMed

Zhao X, Li J (2018) Research on the correlation between ultrasonographic features of breast cancer and expressions of ER, CD34 and p53. J BUON 23:372–377PubMed

Elias SG, Adams A, Wisner DJ et al (2014) Imaging features of HER2 overexpression in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 23:1464–1483. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1170CrossRefPubMed

10.

Huang Y, Tong Z, Chen K et al (2019) Interpretation of breast cancer screening guideline for Chinese women. Cancer Biol Med 16:825–835. https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2019.0322CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Wang W, Zheng Y, Wu XF et al (2020) Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound area ratio in identifying benign and malignant small breast masses. Gland Surg 9:1486–1494. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs-20-697CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Samiei S, de Mooij CM, Lobbes MBI, Keymeulen K, van Nijnatten TJA, Smidt ML (2021) Diagnostic performance of noninvasive imaging for assessment of axillary response after neoadjuvant systemic therapy in clinically node-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 273:694–700. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004356CrossRefPubMed

13.

Cui H, Zhang D, Peng F et al (2021) Identifying ultrasound features of positive expression of Ki67 and P53 in breast cancer using radiomics. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 17:e176–e184. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.13397CrossRefPubMed

14.

Liu Y, Xiong W, Xu JM, Liu YX, Zhang J (2018) Correlations between the expression of C-erB-2, CD34 and ER in breast cancer patients and the signs of conventional ultrasonography and ultrasound elastography. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 22:5539–5545. https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_201809_15815CrossRefPubMed

15.

Zhao X, Yang X, Fu L, Yu K (2021) Associations of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidemic growth factor receptor-2 and Ki-67 with ultrasound signs and prognosis of breast cancer patients. Cancer Manag Res 13:4579–4586. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S276422CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Bae MS, Park SY, Song SE et al (2015) Heterogeneity of triple-negative breast cancer: mammographic, US, and MR imaging features according to androgen receptor expression. Eur Radiol 25:419–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3419-zCrossRefPubMed

17.

Candelaria RP, Adrada BE, Wei W et al (2019) Imaging features of triple-negative breast cancers according to androgen receptor status. Eur J Radiol 114:167–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.03.017CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Muller M, Guth U, Varga Z et al (2020) Clinical imaging of the heterogeneous group of triple-negative breast cancer. Anticancer Res 40:2125–2131. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14171CrossRefPubMed

19.

Tan PH, Ellis I, Allison K et al (2020) The 2019 World Health Organization classification of tumours of the breast. Histopathology 77:181–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.14091CrossRefPubMed

20.

Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB et al (2017) The eighth edition AJCC cancer staging manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 67:93–99. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21388CrossRefPubMed

21.

Cancer Genome Atlas N (2012) Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 490:61–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11412CrossRef

22.

Sedgwick E (2011) The breast ultrasound lexicon: breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Semin Roentgenol 46:245–251. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ro.2011.04.001CrossRefPubMed

23.

Yerli H, Yilmaz T, Kaskati T, Gulay H (2011) Qualitative and semiquantitative evaluations of solid breast lesions by sonoelastography. J Ultrasound Med 30:179–186. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2011.30.2.179CrossRefPubMed

24.

Barr RG, Nakashima K, Amy D et al (2015) WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: part 2: breast. Ultrasound Med Biol 41:1148–1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.03.008CrossRefPubMed

25.

Adler DD, Carson PL, Rubin JM, Quinn-Reid D (1990) Doppler ultrasound color flow imaging in the study of breast cancer: preliminary findings. Ultrasound Med Biol 16:553–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-5629(90)90020-dCrossRefPubMed

26.

Venema CM, Bense RD, Steenbruggen TG et al (2019) Consideration of breast cancer subtype in targeting the androgen receptor. Pharmacol Ther 200:135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2019.05.005CrossRefPubMed

27.

Allison KH, Hammond MEH, Dowsett M et al (2020) Estrogen and progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer: ASCO/CAP guideline update. J Clin Oncol 38:1346–1366. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02309CrossRefPubMed

28.

Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG et al (2013) Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31:3997–4013. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984CrossRefPubMed

29.

Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:736–750. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp082CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Ko ES, Lee BH, Kim HA, Noh WC, Kim MS, Lee SA (2010) Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between imaging and pathological findings. Eur Radiol 20:1111–1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1656-3CrossRefPubMed

31.

de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G et al (2007) Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer 96:1504–1513. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603756CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Cheng C, Zhao H, Tian W, Hu C, Zhao H (2021) Predicting the expression level of Ki-67 in breast cancer using multi-modal ultrasound parameters. BMC Med Imaging 21:150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-021-00684-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Lamb PM, Perry NM, Vinnicombe SJ, Wells CA (2000) Correlation between ultrasound characteristics, mammographic findings and histological grade in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Clin Radiol 55:40–44. https://doi.org/10.1053/crad.1999.0333CrossRefPubMed

34.

Zhi H, Ou B, Xiao XY et al (2013) Ultrasound elastography of breast lesions in chinese women: a multicenter study in China. Clin Breast Cancer 13:392–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2013.02.015CrossRefPubMed

35.

Chang JM, Park IA, Lee SH et al (2013) Stiffness of tumours measured by shear-wave elastography correlated with subtypes of breast cancer. Eur Radiol 23:2450–2458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2866-2CrossRefPubMed

36.

Chamming’s F, Latorre-Ossa H, Le Frere-Belda MA et al (2013) Shear wave elastography of tumour growth in a human breast cancer model with pathological correlation. Eur Radiol 23:2079–2086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2828-8CrossRefPubMed

37.

Au-Yong IT, Evans AJ, Taneja S et al (2009) Sonographic correlations with the new molecular classification of invasive breast cancer. Eur Radiol 19:2342–2348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1418-2CrossRefPubMed

38.

Zhang H, Sui X, Zhou S, Hu L, Huang X (2019) Correlation of conventional ultrasound characteristics of breast tumors with axillary lymph node metastasis and Ki-67 expression in patients with breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med 38:1833–1840. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14879CrossRefPubMed

39.

Dogan BE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Gilcrease M, Dryden MJ, Yang WT (2010) Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1160–1166. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2355CrossRefPubMed

40.

Aho M, Irshad A, Ackerman SJ et al (2013) Correlation of sonographic features of invasive ductal mammary carcinoma with age, tumor grade, and hormone-receptor status. J Clin Ultrasound 41:10–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.21990CrossRefPubMed

41.

Tamaki K, Sasano H, Ishida T et al (2010) The correlation between ultrasonographic findings and pathologic features in breast disorders. Jpn J Clin Oncol 40:905–912. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyq070CrossRefPubMed

42.

Watermann DO, Tempfer CB, Hefler LA, Parat C, Stickeler E (2005) Ultrasound criteria for ductal invasive breast cancer are modified by age, tumor size, and axillary lymph node status. Breast Cancer Res Treat 89:127–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-004-1478-6CrossRefPubMed

43.

Luo C, Zhong X, Wang Z et al (2019) Prognostic nomogram for patients with non-metastatic HER2 positive breast cancer in a prospective cohort. Int J Biol Markers 34:41–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1724600818824786CrossRefPubMed

44.

Kono M, Fujii T, Lim B, Karuturi MS, Tripathy D, Ueno NT (2017) Androgen receptor function and androgen receptor-targeted therapies in breast cancer: a review. JAMA Oncol 3:1266–1273. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4975CrossRefPubMed

45.

Jiang HS, Kuang XY, Sun WL et al (2016) Androgen receptor expression predicts different clinical outcomes for breast cancer patients stratified by hormone receptor status. Oncotarget 7:41285–41293. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.9778CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Gao JJ, Swain SM (2018) Luminal A breast cancer and molecular assays: A Review. Oncologist 23:556–565. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0535CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Hickey TE, Selth LA, Chia KM et al (2021) The androgen receptor is a tumor suppressor in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Nat Med 27:310–320. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-01168-7CrossRefPubMed

48.

Rampurwala M, Wisinski KB, O’Regan R (2016) Role of the androgen receptor in triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 14:186–193PubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Correlation of androgen receptor with ultrasound, clinicopathological features and clinical outcomes in breast cancer
Authors: Xudong Zhang
Hao Cui
Nana Hu
Peng Han
Wei Fan
Panting Wang
Xiaoxuan Zuo
Dantong Zhao
He Huang
Shuo Li
Hanqing Kong
Fuhui Peng
Jiawei Tian
Lei Zhang
Publication date: 01-12-2023
Publisher: Springer Vienna
Keywords: Ultrasound
Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer
Ultrasound
Androgens
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01387-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Correlation of androgen receptor with ultrasound, clinicopathological features and clinical outcomes in breast cancer

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

CT appearances and classification of hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma

Label-set impact on deep learning-based prostate segmentation on MRI

Clinical audit in European radiology: current status and recommendations for improvement endorsed by the European Society of Radiology (ESR)

Artificial intelligence education for radiographers, an evaluation of a UK postgraduate educational intervention using participatory action research: a pilot study

Early chest CT abnormalities to predict the subsequent occurrence of chronic lung allograft dysfunction

Value of placental virtual magnetic resonance elastography and intravoxel incoherent motion-based diffusion and perfusion in predicting adverse outcomes of small-for-gestational-age infants