Background: To investigate the clinicopathological significance of androgen receptor (AR) expression in primary breast cancers. Patients and methods: We evaluated AR using immunohistochemistry from 413 whole sections from January 2008 to March 2009 and analyzed the relationship between AR and clinicopathological parameters. Tumors with ≥10% nuclear-stained cells were considered to be positive for AR. The differences among variables were calculated by chi-square test. Results: The expression rate of AR was 72.9% higher than those of estrogen receptors (ER) and progesterone receptors. AR expression was significant in patients with no elevated preoperative serum cancer antigen 15-3 levels, smaller tumor size, lower histologic grade and hormone receptor-positive and non-triple-negative breast cancer. However, AR expression was observed in 35% of triple-negative cancers. Metaplastic, medullary and mucinous types of carcinomas showed less AR expression. In the ER-negative subgroup, AR was significantly correlated with human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER-2) overexpression. Conclusions: AR is expressed in a significant number of breast cancers and is associated with lower tumor burden and favorable differentiation. There are many issues to be further investigated such as whether AR is an independent prognostic factor, whether it is a therapeutic target for the triple-negative breast cancers and whether it is associated with HER-2 signaling in ER-negative tumors.

To investigate the significance of immunohistochemical molecular subtyping, we evaluated outcomes of subtypes based on estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and Ki-67. Using tissue microarrays, 1006 breast cancer patients between November 1999 and August 2005 were categorized into four subtypes: luminal A (ER+ and/or PR+, HER2-, Ki-67 < 14%), luminal B (ER+ and/or PR+, HER2-, Ki-67 ≥ 14% or ER+ and/or PR+, HER2+), HER2-enriched (ER-, PR-, HER2+), and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (ER-, PR-, HER2-). Demographics, recurrence patterns, and survival were retrospectively analyzed using uni-/multivariate analyses. Luminal A, luminal B, HER2-enriched, and TNBC accounted for 53.1%, 21.7%, 9.0%, and 16.2% of cases, respectively. Luminal A presented well-differentiation and more co-expression of hormone receptors comparing to luminal B. HER2-enriched showed larger size and higher nodal metastasis. TNBC demonstrated younger age at diagnosis, larger size, undifferentiation, higher proliferation, and frequent visceral metastases. The peak of recurrence for luminal A was at 36 months postoperatively, while that for HER2-enriched and TNBC peaked at 12 months. The relapse risk of luminal B was mixed. Luminal A showed the best survival, but no difference was observed between the other three subtypes. When matched by nodal status, however, TNBC showed the worst outcomes in node-positive patients. In multivariate analyses, luminal A remained a positive prognostic significance. Immunohistochemically-defined subtypes showed different features, recurrence patterns, and survival. Therefore, molecular subtypes using four biomarkers could provide clinically useful information of tumor biology and clinical behaviors, and could be used for determining treatment and surveillance strategies.

Background: The objective of the study was to evaluate the implications of androgen receptor (AR) in breast cancers. Patients and methods: We investigated immunohistochemical AR expression from the tissue microarrays of 931 patients between 1999 and 2005, and analyzed demographics and outcomes using uni-/multivariate analyses. Tumors with ≥10% nuclear-stained cells were considered positive for AR. Results: AR was expressed in 58.1% of patients. AR was significantly related to older age at diagnosis, smaller size, well-differentiated tumors, higher positivity of hormone receptors, non-triple-negative breast cancers (non-TNBCs), and lower proliferative index. In estrogen receptor (ER)-negative tumors, AR was distinctively associated with human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) overexpression. With a mean follow-up of 72.7 months, AR was positively related to survival in ER-positive but not in ER-negative tumors. In Cox’s models, AR was an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival in ER-positive cancers. Interestingly, molecular apocrine tumors (ER negative and AR positive) with HER2 positive status showed trends of poorer outcome, but AR had no impact on survival in patients with TNBC. Conclusions: AR is significantly associated with favorable features in breast cancers and related to better outcomes in ER-positive not in ER-negative tumors. These results suggest that AR could be an additional marker for endocrine responsiveness in ER-positive cancers and a candidate for therapeutic targeting of ER-negative tumors.

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify the comprehensive risk factors for lymphedema, thereby enabling a more informed multidisciplinary treatment decision-making. Summary Background Data: Lymphedema is a serious long-term complication in breast cancer patients post-surgery; however, the influence of multimodal therapy on its occurrence remains unclear. Methods: We retrospectively collected treatment-related data from 5549 breast cancer patients who underwent surgery between 2007 and 2015 at our institution. Individual radiotherapy plans were reviewed for regional nodal irradiation (RNI) field design and fractionation type. We identified lymphedema risk factors and used them to construct nomograms to predict individual risk of lymphedema. Nomograms were validated internally using 100 bootstrap samples and externally using 2 separate datasets of 1877 Asian and 191 Western patients. Results: Six hundred thirty-nine patients developed lymphedema during a median follow-up of 60 months. The 3-year lymphedema incidence was 10.5%; this rate increased with larger irradiation volumes (no RNI vs RNI excluding axilla I–II vs RNI including axilla I–II: 5.7% vs 16.8% vs 24.1%) and when using conventional fractionation instead of hypofractionation (13.5% vs 6.8%). On multivariate analysis, higher body mass index, larger number of dissected nodes, taxane-based regimen, total mastectomy, larger irradiation field, and conventional fractionation were strongly associated with lymphedema (all P < 0.001). Nomograms constructed based on these variables showed good calibration and discrimination internally (concordance index: 0.774) and externally (0.832 for Asian and 0.820 for Western patients). Conclusions: Trimodality breast cancer treatment factors interact to promote lymphedema. Lymphedema risk can be decreased by deintensifying node dissection, chemotherapy regimen, and field and dose of radiotherapy. Deescalation strategies on a multidisciplinary basis might minimize lymphedema risk.

Introduction: Perioperative anesthesia and analgesia exacerbate immunosuppression in immunocompromised cancer patients. The natural killer (NK) cell is a critical part of anti-tumor immunity. We compared the effects of two different anesthesia and analgesia methods on the NK cell cytotoxicity (NKCC) in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery.