ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2014
Clinicopathologic characteristics and survival of male breast cancer.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Male breast cancer: common biomarkers, clinicopathology, and outcomes in the west of Iran.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Matched-pair long-term survival analysis of male and female patients with breast cancer: a population-based study.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2024Article
- Male breast cancer in a single-center experience: Diagnosis, clinicopathological features, and treatment strategies.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2024Article
- Clinical, Pathological, and Prognostic Features of Male Breast Cancer: A Multicenter Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Young male breast cancer, a small crowd, the survival, and prognosis?: A population-based study.Medicine · 2018Observational
- The Unknown microRNA Expression of Male Breast Cancer. Similarities and Differences with Female Ductal Carcinoma. Their Role as Tumor Biomarker.Journal of Cancer · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsMale breast cancer (MBC) is a rare disease and accounts for <1 % of all breast cancers.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis of MBC patients who were diagnosed in our hospital between March 2002 and March 2012.
resultsThe median age of diagnosis of MBC was 62 years, which was 9 years older than female breast cancer (FBC) patients. The highest proportion of MBC patients was in the 50-59-year age group. The percentage of invasive ductal carcinoma in MBC was much higher than in FBC (P = 0.000). The positive rate of estrogen receptors in MBC patients (87.9 %) was significantly higher than in FBC patients (P = 0.048), whereas HER-2 was positive in 17.2 % of MBC patients, which was significantly lower than in FBC patients (P = 0.001). There was a consistent significant difference in luminal subtypes of FBC and MBC patients (P = 0.000). The overall survival rates of MBC were significantly higher than FBC (P = 0.004). HER-2-positive patients had a statistically worse prognosis than HER-2-negative patients (P = 0.040). Lymph node metastasis and larger tumor size were also associated with poorer prognosis (P = 0.056 and P = 0.088). The level of hormones was examined in 7 patients, and abnormal hormone levels were detected in 4.
conclusionThe FBC patients were significantly different from the MBC in clinicopathologic and prognostic characteristics. HER-2 positivity was an important factor for prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.