ArticleDiscover oncology2026
Radiotherapy and surgery for male breast cancer a population analysis of survival by age and stage.
Article in Discover oncology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMale breast cancer (MBC) is a rare malignancy with limited evidence-based treatment guidelines, particularly for early-stage disease in younger male patients. Therefore, further research is essential to define optimal therapeutic strategies and improve clinical outcomes.
methodsUsing SEER data (2000–2020), we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4551 MBC patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or total mastectomy (TM), stratified by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). Groups included BCS with RT (n = 285), BCS without RT (n = 291), TM with RT (n = 1048), and TM without RT (n = 2927). Multivariate Cox regression, Kaplan–Meier analysis, subgroup analysis, and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to assess breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS).
resultsThe maximum follow-up was 251 months, with a median of 71.4 months. The BCS rate was 12.7% (576/4551). Mean patient age was 65.1 ± 12.6 years. In Cox multivariate analysis, with BCS with RT as the reference group, patients receiving BCS without RT, TM with RT, and TM without RT showed significantly higher mortality risks (all P < .05). When TM without RT was used as the reference, BCS with RT remained associated with significantly better BCSS (HR: 0.19; 95% CI 0.08–0.48, P < .001) and OS (HR: 0.48; 95% CI 0.32–0.71, P < .001). Subgroup analyses (Figs. 3 & 4) consistently demonstrated survival advantages for BCS with RT, particularly in stage I–II and younger patients (< 65 years). Additionally, TM with RT improved survival compared to TM without RT in stages II–III (e.g., stage II OS, HR: 1.27, 95% CI 1.05–1.54). After propensity score matching, multimodal analysis shows that stage I-II MBC patients receiving BCS with RT had longer OS than those undergoing TM with or without RT (all P < .05).
conclusionsIn patients younger than 65 years or with stage I-II MBC, adjuvant RT following BCS is associated with a survival advantage. For stage II-III patients who underwent TM, adjuvant RT is linked to improved survival outcomes.
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.