MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Loss of androgen receptor expression is not associated with pathological stage, grade, gender or outcome in bladder cancer: a large multi‐institutional study

2010· article· en· W1598862994 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carmen Mir, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Theodorus van der Kwast, Raheela Ashfaq, Yair Lotan, Andrew Evans, Sean Skeldon, Sally Hanna, Rati Vajpeyi, Cynthia Kuk, Sultan Alkhateeb, Juan Moróte, Bas W.G. van Rhijn, Peter J. Boström, Jorge L. Yao, Hiroshi Miyamoto, Michael Jewett, Neil Fleshner, Ed Messing, Alexandre R. Zlotta

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAndrogen receptorPathologicalBladder cancerStage (stratigraphy)OncologyAndrogenMedicineProstate cancerOutcome (game theory)Internal medicineCancerBiologyHormoneMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Type – Prognosis (multi‐centre cohort) Level of Evidence 1b What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? More men than women develop bladder cancer (BC) but reasons why are unclear. Recent findings have implicated androgens, androgen receptors (AR) and AR expression in BC. Previous studies showed that a significant loss of AR expression was associated with aggressive BC. However, these results have been gathered on limited series of patients. We analyzed the expression of AR in BC and its correlation with gender, grade, stage and clinical outcome on a large multi‐institutional (Toronto/Dallas) cohort. In contrast to previous reports, our data do not suggest that loss of AR expression is gender‐related nor associated with invasive BC. In fact, in this large cohort, we showed that AR positivity is actually uncommon in BC, that there are no differences in expression among high and low grade tumours and no statistically significant differences between muscle‐invasive AR‐positive and AR‐negative cases in time to death, or time to recurrence. OBJECTIVE • To investigate androgen receptor (AR) expression in a large series of patients with bladder cancer (BC) because data on a limited number of patients showed that loss of AR expression was associated with invasive BC. PATIENTS AND METHODS • A total of 472 patients with urothelial bladder carcinoma (UBC) from two institutional centres (Toronto and Dallas) were analysed. Tissue microarrays comprising both non‐muscle‐invasive UBC ( n = 167) and muscle‐invasive UBC ( n = 305) were accrued and immunohistochemical staining for AR was performed. • We used bright‐field microscopy imaging coupled with advanced colour detection software to detect, classify and count stained cellular objects and manual scoring. • Results obtained in Dallas were blindly reviewed and validated in Toronto and samples randomly chosen were further analysed in Rochester, NY, USA. RESULTS • The AR were positively expressed in 61/472 (12.9%) bladder tumours. No statistically significant difference in AR expression between men and women was observed. • Only 9.0% of non‐muscle‐invasive BC expressed the AR compared with 15.1% of muscle‐invasive tumours ( P = 0.059). The highest percentage of AR positivity (28.9% of cases) was found in T2 tumours. • There was no statistically significant difference in death from BC, time to death, or time to recurrence between AR‐positive and AR‐negative cases. CONCLUSION • In contrast to previous reports, based on our large BC series, we did not observe a decrease in AR protein expression in bladder tumours with increased pathological stage. Our data do not suggest that loss of AR expression is gender‐related nor is it associated with invasive BC.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations132
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207