19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Androgen receptors are acquired by healthy postmenopausal endometrial epithelium and their subsequent loss in endometrial cancer is associated with poor survival

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Endometrial cancer (EC) is a hormone-driven disease, and androgen receptor (AR) expression in high-grade EC (HGEC) and metastatic EC has not yet been described.

          Methods:

          The expression pattern and prognostic value of AR in relation to oestrogen (ER α and ER β) and progesterone (PR) receptors, and the proliferation marker Ki67 in all EC subtypes ( n=85) were compared with that of healthy and hyperplastic endometrium, using immunohistochemisty and qPCR.

          Results:

          Compared with proliferative endometrium, postmenopausal endometrtial epithelium showed significantly higher expression of AR ( P<0.001) and ER α ( P=0.035), which persisted in hyperplastic epithelium and in low-grade EC (LGEC). High-grade EC showed a significant loss of AR ( P<0.0001), PR ( P<0.0001) and ER β ( P<0.035) compared with LGEC, whilst maintaining weak to moderate ER α. Unlike PR, AR expression in metastatic lesions was significantly ( P=0.039) higher than that in primary tumours. Androgen receptor expression correlated with favourable clinicopathological features and a lower proliferation index. Loss of AR, with/without the loss of PR was associated with a significantly lower disease-free survival ( P<0.0001, P<0.0001, respectively).

          Conclusions:

          Postmenopausal endometrial epithelium acquires AR whilst preserving other steroid hormone receptors. Loss of AR, PR with retention of ER α and ER β may promote the unrestrained growth of HGEC. Androgen receptor may therefore be a clinically relevant prognostic indicator and a potential therapeutic target in EC.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers

          Background: Classification of endometrial carcinomas (ECs) by morphologic features is inconsistent, and yields limited prognostic and predictive information. A new system for classification based on the molecular categories identified in The Cancer Genome Atlas is proposed. Methods: Genomic data from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) support classification of endometrial carcinomas into four prognostically significant subgroups; we used the TCGA data set to develop surrogate assays that could replicate the TCGA classification, but without the need for the labor-intensive and cost-prohibitive genomic methodology. Combinations of the most relevant assays were carried forward and tested on a new independent cohort of 152 endometrial carcinoma cases, and molecular vs clinical risk group stratification was compared. Results: Replication of TCGA survival curves was achieved with statistical significance using multiple different molecular classification models (16 total tested). Internal validation supported carrying forward a classifier based on the following components: mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry, POLE mutational analysis and p53 immunohistochemistry as a surrogate for ‘copy-number' status. The proposed molecular classifier was associated with clinical outcomes, as was stage, grade, lymph-vascular space invasion, nodal involvement and adjuvant treatment. In multivariable analysis both molecular classification and clinical risk groups were associated with outcomes, but differed greatly in composition of cases within each category, with half of POLE and mismatch repair loss subgroups residing within the clinically defined ‘high-risk' group. Combining the molecular classifier with clinicopathologic features or risk groups provided the highest C-index for discrimination of outcome survival curves. Conclusions: Molecular classification of ECs can be achieved using clinically applicable methods on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples, and provides independent prognostic information beyond established risk factors. This pragmatic molecular classification tool has potential to be used routinely in guiding treatment for individuals with endometrial carcinoma and in stratifying cases in future clinical trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Type I and II endometrial cancers: have they different risk factors?

            Endometrial cancers have long been divided into estrogen-dependent type I and the less common clinically aggressive estrogen-independent type II. Little is known about risk factors for type II tumors because most studies lack sufficient cases to study these much less common tumors separately. We examined whether so-called classical endometrial cancer risk factors also influence the risk of type II tumors. Individual-level data from 10 cohort and 14 case-control studies from the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium were pooled. A total of 14,069 endometrial cancer cases and 35,312 controls were included. We classified endometrioid (n = 7,246), adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified (n = 4,830), and adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation (n = 777) as type I tumors and serous (n = 508) and mixed cell (n = 346) as type II tumors. Parity, oral contraceptive use, cigarette smoking, age at menarche, and diabetes were associated with type I and type II tumors to similar extents. Body mass index, however, had a greater effect on type I tumors than on type II tumors: odds ratio (OR) per 2 kg/m(2) increase was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.19 to 1.21) for type I and 1.12 (95% CI, 1.09 to 1.14) for type II tumors (P heterogeneity < .0001). Risk factor patterns for high-grade endometrioid tumors and type II tumors were similar. The results of this pooled analysis suggest that the two endometrial cancer types share many common etiologic factors. The etiology of type II tumors may, therefore, not be completely estrogen independent, as previously believed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Classification of endometrial carcinoma: more than two types.

              Endometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological malignancy in Europe and North America. Traditional classification of endometrial carcinoma is based either on clinical and endocrine features (eg, types I and II) or on histopathological characteristics (eg, endometrioid, serous, or clear-cell adenocarcinoma). Subtypes defined by the different classification systems correlate to some extent, but there is substantial heterogeneity in biological, pathological, and molecular features within tumour types from both classification systems. In this Review we provide an overview of traditional and newer genomic classifications of endometrial cancer. We discuss how a classification system that incorporates genomic and histopathological features to define biologically and clinically relevant subsets of the disease would be useful. Such integrated classification might facilitate development of treatments tailored to specific disease subgroups and could potentially enable delivery of precision medicine to patients with endometrial cancer. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Cancer
                Br. J. Cancer
                British Journal of Cancer
                Nature Publishing Group
                0007-0920
                1532-1827
                15 March 2016
                01 March 2016
                15 March 2016
                : 114
                : 6
                : 688-696
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Women's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool , Liverpool L8 7SS, UK
                [2 ]The National Center for Early Detection of Cancer, Oncology Teaching Hospital, Baghdad Medical City , Baghdad, Iraq
                [3 ]Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University , Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK
                [4 ]Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust , Liverpool L8 7SS, UK
                [5 ]Lancashire Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Lancaster University , Preston PR2 9HT UK
                Author notes
                Article
                bjc201616
                10.1038/bjc.2016.16
                4800292
                26930451
                b24c16bd-ca71-4b9a-baf0-417a3df00d02
                Copyright © 2016 Cancer Research UK

                This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 19 October 2015
                : 22 December 2015
                Categories
                Molecular Diagnostics

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                androgen receptor (ar),endometrial cancer,postmenopausal endometrium,metastatic lesions,erβ,erα,pr,outcome

                Comments

                Comment on this article