Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26623210›Full record

ArticleCureus2015

Male Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors Versus Female Counterparts with Propensity Scores and Matched-Pair Analysis.

Edward Yu, Larry Stitt, Olga Vujovic, Kurian Joseph, Avi Assouline, Jawaid Younus, Francisco Perera, Patricia Tai

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Unusual Male Breast Lesions.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2021
    Review
  7. Male Breast Cancer in Togo: Imaging and Clinicopathological Findings.International journal of breast cancer · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Journal of breast cancer · 2017
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Male Breast Cancer: Current Scenario and Future Perspectives.Technology in cancer research & treatment
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Edward YuDepartment of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Western University.
Larry StittClinical Research Unit, London Health Sciences Centre.
Olga VujovicRadiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, Western University.
Kurian JosephDepartment of Oncology, Cross Cancer Center, University of Alberta.
Avi AssoulineDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Centre Clinique de la Porte de Saint-Cloud.
Jawaid YounusMedical Oncology, Western University.
Francisco PereraRadiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, Western University.
Patricia TaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Allan Blair Cancer Center, University of Saskatchewan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the effect of prognostic factors and their impact on survival in male and female breast cancer.

methodsMedical records for men and women diagnosed with breast cancer referred to the cancer center for treatment were reviewed. Patients with distant metastatic diseases were excluded. Data on prognostic factors including age, nodal status, resection margin, use of hormonal therapy, chemotherapy with and without hormone and radiation therapy (RT), survival, and recurrence were analyzed. Survival estimates were obtained using Kaplan-Meier methodology. The Cox regression interaction was used to compare male and female differences in prognostic factors. Male breast cancer (MBC) and female breast cancer (FBC) were matched according to propensity scores and survival compared using Cox regression.

resultsFrom 1963-2006, there were 75 MBC and 1,313 FBC totaling 1,388 breast cancers. The median age of the cohort was 53 (range: 23-90) years. Median follow-up was 90 (range: 0.4-339) months. Prognostic factors of patients were balanced among the groups after adjusting for propensity scores. A Cox model adjusting for propensity scores showed that overall survival (OS) (HR= 2.52 (1.65, 3.86), P<0.001) and distant disease recurrence-free survival (DDRFS) (HR= 2.39 (0.75, 3.04), P=0.003) were significantly different for MBC and FBC. Analyses that stratified by propensity score quintiles had similar findings: OS HR=2.41 (1.67, 3.47), P<0.001); DDRFS HR=2.89 (1.81, 4.60), P<0.001). When MBC and FBC were matched (1:3) by propensity scores, differences between MBC and FBC were again observed in OS (HR=1.94, 95%CI:1.18-3.19, P=0.009) and DDRFS (HR=2.79, 95%CI:1.36-5.75, P=0.005) with MBC at a higher risk of death and  disease recurrence compared to FBC .

conclusionThis large series showed that MBC and FBC survivals are not similar, with MBC having a worse outcome. The finding of this study needs confirmation from a complete prospective database.

Indexed as

breast cancerfemalemalematched-pairedprognostic factorspropensity scoressurvival

Identifiers

PMID26623210
PMCPMC4652922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.