Treatment Outcomes for Male Breast Cancer: A Single-Centre Retrospective Case–Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Male breast cancer (bc) is a rare disease, and the availability of information on treatment outcomes is limited compared with that for female bc. The objective of the present study was to compare disease-free (dfs) and overall survival (os) for men compared with women having early-stage bc. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study compared men and women treated for stage 0-iiib bc at a single institution between 1981 and 2009. Matching was based on age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, and stage. Treatment, recurrence, and survival data were collected. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate os and dfs. RESULTS: For the 144 eligible patients (72 men, 72 women), median age at diagnosis was 66.5 years. Treatments included mastectomy (72 men, 38 women), radiation (29 men, 44 women), chemotherapy (23 men, 20 women), and endocrine therapy (57 men, 57 women). Mean dfs was 127 months for women compared with 93 months for men (p = 0.62). Mean os was 117 months for women compared with 124 months for men (p = 0.35). In multivariate analysis, the only parameter that affected both dfs and os was stage at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This case-control study is one of the largest to report treatment outcomes in early-stage male bc patients treated in a non-trial setting. Male patients received systemic therapy that was comparable to that received by their female counterparts, and they had similar os and dfs. These results add to current evidence from population studies that male sex is not a poor prognostic factor in early-stage breast cancer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".