Invasive lobular carcinoma of the male breast – a systematic review with an illustrative case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jenna-Lynn Senger,1 Scott J Adams,2 Rani Kanthan3 1Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; 2College of Medicine, 3Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada Abstract: Male breast cancer is rare, comprising only 1% of all mammary cancers; invasive ductal carcinoma is by far the commonest subtype in both men and women. Though lobular breast cancer is the second most common subtype seen in women, such cancers are extremely uncommon in men, and this is likely related to the lack of lobular development in the male breast. Thus, due to the rarity of this subtype among breast cancers, compounded by the overall rarity of breast cancer in men, current understanding of the pathogenesis of this disease and its management is largely derived from case series and extrapolation of information from the larger cohort of female patients. This paper provides a systematic review on invasive lobular carcinoma of the male breast in the context of an illustrative case study. A comprehensive analysis of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Data 1973–2013 leading to an exploration of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, tumor characteristics, and management of lobular breast carcinoma in men is also discussed. Lobular subtype of breast cancer remains an enigmatic elusive disease that needs additional research to unravel its overall pathogenesis and molecular profile to provide insight for improved therapeutic management options. Keywords: male breast cancer, lobular breast carcinoma, e-cadherin
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".