ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026
Validation of IHC4 + C for male breast cancer.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Male breast cancer (MBC) is a rare disease accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancers. MBC is almost always of the estrogen receptor (ER) positive luminal subtype. Although differences have been described between male and female breast cancers, therapies for MBC are still largely extrapolated from female breast cancer (FBC). Treatment planning requires accurate prediction models. Several FBC prediction models have also been validated for MBC. Here, we validate the IHC4 + C algorithm in MBC, known to perform well for ER positive FBC. IHC4 + C combines immunohistochemical scores of ER, progesterone receptor, HER2, and Ki67, supplemented by four clinicopathologic features (age, grade, T- and Nstatus). IHC4 + C was validated in a retrospective MBC cohort of 143 patients. The algorithm performed best in MBC for the endpoint of 5-year overall survival, with C-indices between 0.72 and 0.75. Also for MBC, contributing the clinical score to IHC4 improved predictive power. A clear distinction between groups of MBC patients with good, moderate, and poor prognosis was demonstrated using Kaplan-Meier analyses and was highly statistically significant according to the Log-rank test (p = 0.001). The IHC4 + C algorithm that was originally developed for FBC patients performed well in an MBC cohort. It accurately separated patients with good, intermediate, and poor performance at high statistical significance. Development of a MBC-specific prediction tool remains desirable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41575527What 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.