SynthesisBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2022
Relevance of the 21-gene expression assay in male breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Oncotype DX® 21-gene recurrence score and clinical outcomes in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative male breast cancer: a scoping review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Sex Disparities in Breast Cancer Survival According to Clinical Treatment Score Post-5 Years (CTS5) Risk Stratification.Cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Review
- An Update on the General Features of Breast Cancer in Male Patients-A Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Characteristics, Treatment, and Survival of Male Breast Cancer: A 21-year Retrospective Analysis at a Community Academic Institute in Central Illinois.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe 21-gene assay provides prognostication for estrogen receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (ER+/HER2-) early female breast cancer patients. This signature has not been validated in male breast cancer (MBC).
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance to the PRISMA guidelines. Retrospective cohort studies comparing 21-gene assay scores in female and MBC were included. Dichotomous variables were pooled as odds ratios (OR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel method.
resultsSix studies including 176,338 patients were included (mean age of 63.4 years, range: 33-88). Of these, 1.0% had MBC (1826/176,338) and 99.0% were female patients (174,512/176,338). MBC patients were more likely to have increased tumour stage, nodal involvement, and grade 3 disease (all P < 0.001) In MBC patients, the mean score was 18.8 (range: 11-26) vs. 13.4 (range 0-33) in female patients (P < 0.001). In MBC patients, 22.4% had scores >30 (408/1822) versus 18.3% in female patients (31,852/174,500). In female patients, 52.0% had scores <18 (90,787/174,500) versus 47.8% in MBC (471/1822). Overall, patients with female patients were as likely to have scores <18 (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.94-1.16), scores 18-30 (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.00-1.26) and scores >30 (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.45-1.07) as MBC patients.
conclusionThere are similar anticipated scores for female and MBC undergoing 21-gene expression assay testing for early stage, ER+/HER2-breast cancer. In the absence of stage matching, cautious interpretation of these results is required. Validation of the 21-gene assay in MBC is still required.
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.