Neda A. Moatamed

Significance of androgen receptor and its potential for anti-androgen/androgen receptor-antagonist therapy in ovarian cancers

Introduction Androgen promotes tumorigenesis in some cancers; however, androgen receptor (AR) is not commonly examined in ovarian cancers (OCs). In this study, we evaluated AR expression among different types of OCs and compared the results to estrogen and progesterone receptors (ER & PR). Materials and methods AR, ER, and PR expressions were assessed in 62 cases which were categorized into: low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSCA), high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSCA), clear cell carcinoma (CCCA), ovarian endometrioid carcinoma (OECA), and granulosa cell tumor (GCT). The hormone receptors were compared and evaluated in relation to p53 and body mass index (BMI) using Fisher’s Exact test. Results In a majority of cases, expression of AR was concordant with ER and/or PR. Positivity for all three receptors was observed in 100% of OECAs. AR expression was seen in 92% of HGSCAs as opposed to 88% and 44% for ER and PR. LGSCAs had expressed AR and ER (100%), and PR (70%). In GCTs, positivity rates were 92%, 62%, and 92% for AR, ER, and PR. In rare cases of HGSCA and CCCA, AR was positive despite negative ER and PR. Conclusion AR is expressed in a high percentage of OCs, even more frequently than ER and PR in certain high-grade histological types. Overall, our findings are similar to the results of recent studies of AR expression in endometrial cancers. These findings support an important possible role for AR in OCs as a potential marker to serve as a therapeutic target in these malignancies.

Androgen receptor and its correlation with estrogen and progesterone receptors, aimed for identification of cases for future anti-androgen therapy in endometrial cancers

Introduction The expression of androgen receptor (AR) is not commonly tested or studied in uterine cancers, unlike estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) which are positive in most endometrial carcinomas. In this series, we evaluated the expression of AR and its comparison to ER and PR in different types of endometrial cancers and have reviewed the literature. Materials and methods The status of AR, ER, and PR expression were evaluated in 71 cases which were categorized into endometrial endometrioid cancer (EEC), non-endometrioid endometrial cancers (NEEC), and metastatic carcinomas of endometrium. Expression of the receptors were compared to each other as well as to mismatch repair proteins (MMR), p53, and body mass index (BMI) using Fisher’s Exact test in the StatPlus software. Results In EECs, the positivity was 97% for all the three receptors. In NEEC, positivity rates were 68%, 48%, and 35% for AR, ER, and PR respectively. In Metastatic carcinomas, AR and ER positivity was seen in 100% while PR was positive in 75% of the cases. In all cancers, the rates were 17% (11/66) for MMR loss, 57% (30/53) for p53 aberrant expression, and 76% (54/71) for the patients with BMI of ≥ 25 (kg/m2). Conclusion AR is expressed in a high percentage of endometrial cancers. Its significance is more evident in high-grade NEEC where ER and PR may not be expressed. These findings warrant further evaluation of AR expression and candidacy of this pathway as a potential therapeutic target in endometrial cancers.