Male Breast Cancer: 20 Years Experience of a Tertiary Hospital from the Middle Black Sea Region of Turkey

Saving the Male Breast: A Systematic Literature Review of Breast-Conservation Surgery for Male Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Male breast cancer (MBC) management is extrapolated from female BC. Mastectomy remains the most frequently used surgical procedure for male breast cancer (MBC). We performed a literature review to assess the use of breast-conservation (BCS) in MBC as well as outcomes following BCS.

METHODS

A systematic literature was performed, and articles screened to identify studies that measured overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), or local recurrence (LR) in patients undergoing BCS. Weighted averages based on study size were performed for LR, DFS, and 5-year OS.

RESULTS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria with male breast surgery cases, and 859 (14.7%) underwent BCS. The mean follow-up time was 53 months, and mean age was 62.6 years, with stage II as the most common presentation. Two studies reported that 50-71.4% of patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy, and four studies reported axillary lymph node dissection in 14.3-100%. Five studies reported on adjuvant radiation therapy in 12.0-100% of total patients undergoing BCS. Four studies reported use of hormonal therapy in 73.8-100% of patients. Four studies reported use of chemotherapy in 25-66.7% of patients. Seven studies reported LR among 116 patients, with a weighted average of 9.9%. Three studies reported on DFS in 14 patients, with a weighted average 85.6%. Two studies report OS in 143 patients with a weighted average of 84.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast conservation may be considered a safe alternative in the surgical treatment of MBC. Future research should focus on better standardization of local therapy for MBC and improved reporting of outcomes.

A comparison of tumour size measurements with palpation, ultrasound and mammography in male breast cancer: first results of the prospective register study

PURPOSE

Precise presurgical diagnosis of tumour size is essential for adequate treatment of male breast cancer (MBC). This study is aimed to compare the accuracy of clinical measurement (CE), ultrasound (US) and mammography (MG) for preoperative estimation of tumour size.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a prospective, multicentre register study. One hundred and twenty-nine male patients with invasive breast cancer were included. CE, US and MG were performed in 107, 110 and 75 patients, respectively, and the estimated tumour size was compared with the histopathological (HP) tumour size.

RESULTS

All methods tended to underestimate the HP tumour size. None of the methods were significantly more accurate than the others in determining the maximal tumour diameter. The sensitivity within 5 mm tolerance for US was 65.5%, which was better than for MG (61.3%) and CE (56.6%). In the group of patients with pT2 tumours, MG showed significantly better accuracy than US. The measurements obtained with each method were significantly correlated with the HP measurements. The highest correlation coefficient was observed for MG (0.788), followed by US (0.741) and CE (0.671).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate that MG and US have similar accuracy with regard to tumour size estimation. US assessment showed the highest sensitivity in determining tumour size, followed by MG and CE. However, MG demonstrated a significant advantage for estimating the real tumour size for pT2 tumours compared to US or CE.

Male Breast Cancer

Objectives

A clinicopathologic study with an emphasis on tumor immunohistochemical profile is presented.

Methods

Sixty-one cases of male invasive breast cancers were studied. Median age of the cohort was 65 years.

Results

Ninety-seven percent were estrogen receptor positive+ and 10% human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive. The individual diagnostic marker positivity was 98% for GATA-binding protein 3, 95% for androgen receptor, 90% for progesterone receptor, 88% for deleted in pancreatic cancer 4, 75% for gross cystic disease fluid protein 15, 72% for cytokeratin 7, 55% for mammaglobin, and 15% for vimentin and Wilms tumor protein 1. Caudal type homeobox 2 protein, cytokeratin 20, Napsin A, paired box gene 8, prostate-specific antigen, thyroid transcription factor 1, and uroplakin II were negative in all cases. Survival analyses showed tumor stage, receptor status, and Nottingham prognostic index to be prognostic. The overall survival was 70%, but the breast cancer–specific survival was 92% (mean follow-up, 59 months); 33% developed second malignancy. The immunohistochemistry profile was similar to female breast cancers.

Conclusions

The second malignancies in this cohort affected overall survival and suggest the possibility of other germline mutations in addition to BRCA2 in male patients with breast cancer.