Skip to main content
. 2016 Feb 24;2:16002. doi: 10.1038/npjbcancer.2016.2

Table 3. Logistic regression models predicting androgen receptor expression by IHC stains.

  Androgen receptor staining ⩾1%
Androgen receptor staining >10%
  Crude odds ratio (95% CI) Adjusted odds ratioa (95% CI) Crude odds ratio (95% CI) Adjusted odds ratioa (95% CI)
BRCA1 mutation status
 Carrier versus noncarrier 0.33 (0.14–0.79) 0.47 (0.17–1.3) 0.21 (0.06–0.75) 0.43 (0.11–1.7)
         
5-year change in age at diagnosis 1.2 (1.04–1.5) 1.2 (0.97–1.4) 1.4 (1.1–1.7) 1.3 (1.03–1.7)
         
Histology
 Ductal versus mixed 1.2 (0.26–5.8)   0.65 (0.13–3.2)  
         
Tumor grade
 1/2 vs. 3 6.5 (2.0–20.9) 3.8 (0.98–14.6) 6.3 (1.9–21.6) 4.6 (1.1–19.7)
         
Lymphovascular invasion
 Present versus absent 1.1 (0.52–2.4)   0.84 (0.33–2.2)  
         
Lymphocytic infiltrate
 Positive/focally positive versus negative 0.70 (0.29–1.7)   0.53 (0.19–1.5)  
         
EGFR
 Positive versus negative 0.77 (0.34–1.8)   1.2 (0.41–3.4)  
         
Cytokeratin 5/6
 Positive versus negative 0.77 (0.36–1.6)   0.69 (0.28–1.7)  
         
Cytokeratin 14
 Positive versus negative 0.52 (0.24–1.1) 0.48 (0.19–1.2)
         
PD-L1 cancer
 Positive versus negative 2.7 (1.3–5.9) 2.6 (1.1–6.1) 2.3 (0.92–6.0) 2.8 (0.98–7.8)
         
PD-L1 cancer/inflammatory
 Positive versus negative 1.4 (0.30–6.7) 1.8 (0.23–14.9)

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IHC, immunohistochemical.

a

Adjusted for all other variables that were significantly associated with androgen receptor staining.