Androgen Receptor Is Expressed in the Majority of Breast Cancer Brain Metastases and Is Subtype-Dependent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the expression of the “targetable” androgen receptor (AR) in breast cancer brain metastases (BrM). An established, retrospective 57-patient cohort with metastatic breast cancer who underwent surgery for BrM at the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre between 1999–2013 was studied. AR expression in BrM samples was assessed in triplicate using immunohistochemistry (IHC). AR positive status was defined as nuclear AR expression ≥ 10% by IHC using the SP107 antibody. The median age of patients was 52 years (range 32–85 years). 28 (49%) of BrM were HER2+, 17 (30%) were hormone receptor positive (HR+)/HER2−, and 12 (21%) were triple negative breast cancers (TNBCs). 56% (n = 32/57) of BrM were AR positive, and median AR expression was 20% (CI 1.6–38.3%). AR expression was different across breast cancer subtypes; AR was most frequently expressed in HER2+ (n = 21/28), followed by HR+/HER2− (n = 9/17), and lowest in TNBC (n = 2/12) BrM (p = 0.003). Patients with AR positive versus AR negative BrM had similar overall survival (12.5 vs. 7.9 months, p = 0.6), brain-specific progression-free survival (8.0 vs. 5.1 months, p = 0.95), and time from breast cancer diagnosis to BrM diagnosis (51 vs. 29 months, p = 0.16). AR is expressed in the majority of breast cancer BrM and represents a potential therapeutic target.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".