Abstract S6-05: Characterization of male breast cancer: First results of the EORTC10085/TBCRC/BIG/NABCG International Male BC Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intro: Male BC is a rare disease (<1% male tumors); knowledge is limited and management extrapolated from female BC. An international consortium, coordinated by EORTC and TBCRC, was created to better characterize and manage this disease, with 3 parts: 1) retrospective joint analysis 2) prospective registry 3) clinical trial(s). We report 1st results of part 1. Methods: Joint analysis of male BC pts with available FU & FFPE samples, treated in 1990-2010, in 23 centers from 9 countries. Clinical data, long term outcomes, local pathology were centrally analyzed at EORTC. FFPE samples were analyzed at 3 central labs (UK, NL, US) for histology, grade, ER, PR, AR, HER-2, Ki67. Cut-off for positivity: Allred score ≥ 3 for ER/ AR/PR; 20% for Ki67; ASCO-CAP for HER2. Outcome data (OS & RFS) analyzed per Kaplan Meier, p-values correspond to logrank test, CI’s by Brookmeyer & Crowley. Reported % use number of non-missing values as denominator. Results: 1822 pts enrolled; 349 (19%) ineligible (no valid central lab assessment); of 1473 eligible pts (1384 from EU, 89 from US) 63% diagnosed in 2001-2010. Median age at diagnosis (Dx) was 68.5 ys. Of pts with known M status at Dx, 56 (5.1%) were M1; of 1046 M0 cases, 60% were N0 and 51% had T1 tumors at Dx; 4% of pts had BCS and 18% had SLNB; half received adjuvant RT. (Neo)adjuvant CT was used in 30% of M0 pts, most (44%) anthracycline-only; 77% of M0 pts received adjuvant ET, most tamoxifen (88.4%). Central pathology: 697 cases with central histology & grade (full series ongoing): 87% ductal, 53% grade 2. In 1473 pts, at least 1 biomarker centrally assessed; 92% ER highly+ (Allred 7-8), PR had wider variation (35% highly+); 87% AR highly+; 25% Ki67 high; 5% HER2pos. Using IHC surrogates: 58% Luminal A-like, 35% LuminalB-like/HER2neg, 6% LuminalB-like/HER2pos; 0.1% HER2pos/non-Luminal; 1% TNBC (16% not classified). Outcome: For 1046 M0 pts, median FU was 5.7 yrs (0-19.2); 63% alive at analysis; in 88% cause of death was reported, mainly 33% non-cancer and 28% progression(PD)/toxicity. Significant OS improvement over time is seen. 75% (42/56) M1 pts died, mainly due PD. In M0 pts, median OS (yrs) was significantly correlated with ER+ p=0.001 [Allred 0-2: 3.9 (0.1, 6.0); 3-6: 7.1 (4.7, 11.7); 7-8: 8.8 (8.3, 10.0)] & with PR+ p=0.022 [Allred 0-2: 7.3 (6.1, 10.3), 3-6: 8.0 (7.0, 9.3), 7-8: 9.5 (8.4, 12.8)]; less correlation for AR; no major differences for HER2 or Ki67. Median OS & grade (394 cases; full series ongoing): Grade1: 12.8 yrs (6.1-15.6); Grade2: 7.9 (6.5-10.7); Grade3: 9.3 (4.9-21.1). Median OS for IHC surrogates: 8.7 (7.8-9.7) for Luminal A; 8.3 (6.9-9.4) for Luminal B/HER-2neg; 9.3 years (5.9-21.1) for Luminal B/HER-2+. Similar results were seen for RFS. ER/PR/AR using histoscores will be presented. Conclusions: a) 56% pts had T1 tumors at Dx but only 4% had BCS; b) ER was highly + in >90% but adjuvant ET given in only 77% pts; c) Male BC is usually ER+, PR+ & AR+ and of Luminal A-like subtype (5% HER2pos & 1% TNBC); d) Significant improvement in OS over time; e) ER and PR (Allred) are prognostic (high expression/better prognosis), less for AR, not for Ki67 nor IHC surrogates; f) In-depth characterization of samples is ongoing. Funding: BCRF, EBCC Council, Pink Ribbon NL, BRO. Citation Format: Fatima Cardoso, John Bartlett, Leen Slaets, Carolien van Deurzen, Elise van Leewen-Stok, Peggy Porter, Barbro Linderholm, Ingrid Hedenfalk, Carolien Schroder, John Martens, Jane Bayani, Christi van Asperen, Melissa Murray, Clifford Hudis, Lavinia Middleton, Joanna Vermeij, Stephanie Peeters, Judith Fraser, Monica Nowaczyk, Isabel Rubio, Stefan Aebi, Catherine Kelly, Kathryn Ruddy, Eric Winer, Cecilia Nilsson, Lissandra Dal Lago, Larissa Korde, Kim Benstead, Danielle Van Den Weyngaert, Oliver Bogler, Theodora Goulioti, Nicolas Dif, Carlo Messina, Konstantinos Tryfonidis, Jan Bogaerts, Sharon Giordano. Characterization of male breast cancer: First results of the EORTC10085/TBCRC/BIG/NABCG International Male BC Program [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr S6-05.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".