ReviewThe oncologist2026
Male breast cancer: from extrapolated practice to evidence-based care.
Review in The oncologist, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Male breast cancer (BC) comprises approximately 1% of all BC cases. Although incidence has increased over recent decades, male BC remains understudied, and its management continues to rely on evidence extrapolated from studies focused on female patients. This narrative review synthesizes current knowledge on male BC epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and male-specific considerations that may impact outcomes. Key risk factors include genetic susceptibility, particularly BRCA2 mutations, and conditions that promote hormonal imbalance and excess estrogen exposure, such as obesity and hepatic dysfunction. Men with BC are typically diagnosed later in life, with more advanced disease, and experience worse outcomes than women. Observational data demonstrate underutilization of guideline-recommended locoregional and systemic therapies across modalities among male patients, and uncertainties persist regarding systemic therapy choice and sequencing. The paucity of male-specific prospective data highlights the need to significantly improve male representation in future BC trials. Rigorous analyses of real-world evidence with careful attention to confounders are needed to better characterize current practice patterns, identify gaps in guideline adherence, and evaluate efficacies of systemic therapies.
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.