Prognostic significance of tumor subtypes in male breast cancer: a population-based study
- 484 Downloads
Substantial controversy exists about the prognostic role of tumor subtypes in male breast cancer (MaBC). The aim of this study was to analyze the characteristics of each tumor subtype in MaBC and its association with prognosis compared with other factors. We evaluated MaBC patients between 2010 and 2012 with known estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor [together hormone receptor (HR)] status, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Patients were classified as: HR-positive/HER2-negative, HR-positive/HER2-positive, HR-negative/HER2-positive, and triple-negative (TN). Univariate and multivariate analyses determined the effect of each variable on overall survival (OS). We included 960 patients. Patient distribution was 84.9 % HR-positive/HER2-negative, 11.6 % HR-positive/HER2-positive, 0.6 % HR-negative/HER2-positive, and 2.9 % TN. TN patients were younger, had higher grade, presented with more advanced stage, were more likely to have mastectomy, and to die of breast cancer (all P < 0.05). Univariate analysis showed that HER2 positivity was associated with shorter OS (hazard ratio 1.90, P = 0.031) and TN patients had worse prognosis (hazard ratio 5.10, P = 0.0004). In multivariate analysis, older patients (hazard ratio 3.10, P = 0.032), those with stage IV (hazard ratio 16.27, P < 0.001) and those with TN tumors (hazard ratio 4.61, P = 0.002) had significantly worse OS. We observed significant differences in patient characteristics according to tumor subtype. HER2-positive and TN represented a small proportion of cases. In addition to age and stage, tumor subtype has clear influence on OS in MaBC.
KeywordsMale Breast cancer Breast cancer subtypes Prognostic factors Population-based study
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 6.Cardoso F, Bartlett J, Slaets L, van Deurzen C, van Leewen-Stok E, Porter P, Linderholm B, Hedenfalk I, Schroder C, Martens J (2015) (abstr S6-05) Characterization of male breast cancer: first results of the EORTC10085/TBCRC/BIG/NABCG International Male BC Program. Cancer Res 75(9 Supplement):S6-05CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Arslan UY, Oksuzoglu B, Ozdemir N, Aksoy S, Alkis N, Gok A, Kaplan MA, Gumus M, Berk V, Uncu D, Baykara M, Colak D, Uyeturk U, Turker I, Isikdogan A (2012) Outcome of non-metastatic male breast cancer: 118 patients. Med Oncol 29(2):554–560. doi: 10.1007/s12032-011-9978-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER*Stat Database: Incidence—SEER 18 Regs Research Data + Hurricane Katrina Impacted Louisiana Cases, Nov 2014 Sub (1973-2012 varying)—Linked To County Attributes—Total U.S., 1969-2013 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, released April 2015, based on the November 2014 submission
- 10.Korde LA, Zujewski JA, Kamin L, Giordano S, Domchek S, Anderson WF, Bartlett JM, Gelmon K, Nahleh Z, Bergh J, Cutuli B, Pruneri G, McCaskill-Stevens W, Gralow J, Hortobagyi G, Cardoso F (2010) Multidisciplinary meeting on male breast cancer: summary and research recommendations. J Clin Oncol 28(12):2114–2122. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.5729 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Curigliano G, Colleoni M, Renne G, Mazzarol G, Gennari R, Peruzzotti G, de Braud E, Robertson C, Maiorano E, Veronesi P, Nole F, Mandala M, Ferretti G, Viale G, Goldhirsch A (2002) Recognizing features that are dissimilar in male and female breast cancer: expression of p21Waf1 and p27Kip1 using an immunohistochemical assay. Ann Oncol 13(6):895–902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar