Reviewer’ s report
Title: Androgen receptor expression in a Sri Lankan patient cohort with early breast carcinoma
Version: 0Date: 02 Oct 2019
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound?
If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS: This paper adds to the understanding that all three steroidal receptors
(estrogen, progesteron, and androgen) are present within a large segment of women with breastcancer. The paper finds that in Sri Lankan women with breast carcinoma, approximately 40% hadAR+ status. This is somewhat lower than reported in other studies, but the authors proposereasonable explanations for the difference.The paper does not apply any novel technique or analysis that has not already been used.Additionally, it does not attempt to propose any future work or applications to be studied. It isknown that only a subset of patients with histological evidence of estrogen receptor (ER) positive
status will respond to hormonal therapy. This paper does not address whether being AR+ on
histology correlates with a potential hormonal target for treatment.This work adds to the understand that AR+ status is widespread among women with breast cancer,but it does not overall add to the understanding regarding the significance of the AR receptor fortreatment. Additional researches can use this knowledge to enact therapeutic and imaging studiesto study the role of AR in breast cancer treatment.Well done study that examined the presence of androgen receptor (AR) in a less-well studiedcohort of patients from Sri Lanka. While the techniques and application of the study is not novel,it does add to the evidence that AR positivity is a wide spread aspect of breast cancer that deserves
therapeutic attention and study.
The authors appropriately followed their patients to determine the effects of AR positivity onoutcomes. No therapeutic intervention was based upon the results of this study.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal