Male Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Breast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) of the breast, a rare malignancy that makes up less than 0.1% of all breast malignancies, is much rarer in males than in females. Due to the rarity of this disease, an optimal treatment strategy for male breast ACC has not been established, and therapy for male patients is currently based on guidelines for female patients. According to previous reported cases, some authors believe that male breast ACC may have higher invasive potential than female breast ACC and the prognoses in male patients may be worse than those in female patients. Therefore, a more proactive diagnosis and treatment regimen may be required. However, the clinical feature of our case is inconsistent with this view. Herein we report the case of a 24-year-old male without any antecedent medical or family history who presented with a slow-growing lump on his left chest wall for 5 years. The patient initially underwent lumpectomy, and the mass was pathologically diagnosed as breast ACC. Systemic examination was performed, and no evidence of distant metastasis was found. Then, he received modified radical mastectomy and ipsilateral axillary lymph node dissection. The mastectomy pathological examination revealed that no cancerous tissue was detected around the primary tumor bed, and all 22 axillary lymph nodes were negative. The patient did not receive postoperative chemotherapy, radiotherapy or endocrine therapy and remained well after 28 months of follow-up. In this study, we review the literature and summarize the clinical manifestations, imaging and histopathological characteristics, treatments and outcomes of male breast ACC. We share our experience in the hopes that this evidence will aid in the development of better therapeutics.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".