MATERIALS AND METHODS: We sought to determine the prognostic role of the examined lymph node (LN), negative LN (NLN), and positive LN counts and the LN ratio (LNR), defined as (positive LNs/ENLs), on the survival rate among MBC patients. We performed a large population-based study using the data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.
RESULTS: Older age, black race, stage IV disease, ≤ 1 NLN, and a > 31.3% LNR were significantly associated with worse survival across all prediction models. Moreover, we demonstrated a decreased risk of mortality in MBC patients across the MBC-specific survival model (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.998; P = .03) and 10-year MBC-specific survival model (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.999; P = .04).
CONCLUSION: MBC has had an augmented incidence over the years. We found several independent predictors of MBC survival, including age, race, stage, NLNs, and the LNR. We strongly suggest adding the NLN count and/or LNR into the current staging system. Further studies are needed to provide information on the mechanisms underlying the association between the NLN count and MBC survival and the LNR and MBC survival.
METHODS: We characterised the pathologic features of 419 BRCA1/2 MBCs and, using logistic regression analysis, contrasted those with data from 9675 BRCA1/2 FBCs and with population-based data from 6351 MBCs in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.
RESULTS: Among BRCA2 MBCs, grade significantly decreased with increasing age at diagnosis (P = 0.005). Compared with BRCA2 FBCs, BRCA2 MBCs were of significantly higher stage (P for trend = 2 × 10(-5)) and higher grade (P for trend = 0.005) and were more likely to be oestrogen receptor-positive [odds ratio (OR) 10.59; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 5.15-21.80] and progesterone receptor-positive (OR 5.04; 95 % CI 3.17-8.04). With the exception of grade, similar patterns of associations emerged when we compared BRCA1 MBCs and FBCs. BRCA2 MBCs also presented with higher grade than MBCs from the SEER database (P for trend = 4 × 10(-12)).
CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the largest series analysed to date, our results show that BRCA1/2 MBCs display distinct pathologic characteristics compared with BRCA1/2 FBCs, and we identified a specific BRCA2-associated MBC phenotype characterised by a variable suggesting greater biological aggressiveness (i.e., high histologic grade). These findings could lead to the development of gender-specific risk prediction models and guide clinical strategies appropriate for MBC management.
CASE REPORT: We report a case of myofibroblastoma in an octogenarian male presenting with painless solitary breast lump. Mammography (digital tomosynthesis) and ultrasound showed a well-circumscribed hyperdense mass and hypoechoic, solid, oval mass with peripheral vascularity respectively. Patient underwent wide local excision.
DISCUSSION: Diverse characteristics of myofibroblastoma on imaging necessitates histopathological analysis for an accurate diagnosis. Myofibroblastoma are often confused with fibroadenomas due to the benign imaging characteristics and with malignant neoplasia due to their wide morphological spectrum. Surgical excision is considered curative.
METHODOLOGY: In-depth interviews were conducted among 36 male university students from the Management and Science University, Malaysia, selected by simple random sampling. The themes of the interview were: knowledge of male breast cancer and male breast self-examination, sources of knowledge and attitudes towards male BSE. The data obtained were classified into various categories and analyzed manually.
RESULTS: The majority of participants mentioned that there is a low possibility for males to get breast cancer. They also believed that the cause of breast cancer among men is due to the carcinogens from cigarettes. The majority of participants mentioned that they know about breast self-examination from the mass media and that the presence of a lump in the breast is the main symptom of breast cancer in men. The majority of participants mentioned that they encourage their family members to practice breast self-examination but considered that BSE is not important for men because they have a low probability of getting breast cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Misconceptions regarding male breast cancer and breast self-examination among men still exist among male university students. Therefore special attention should be given to educate men about male breast cancer and male BSE.
METHODS: We analyzed data from 524 families with PALB2 PVs from 21 countries. Complex segregation analysis was used to estimate relative risks (RRs; relative to country-specific population incidences) and absolute risks of cancers. The models allowed for residual familial aggregation of breast and ovarian cancer and were adjusted for the family-specific ascertainment schemes.
RESULTS: We found associations between PALB2 PVs and risk of female breast cancer (RR, 7.18; 95% CI, 5.82 to 8.85; P = 6.5 × 10-76), ovarian cancer (RR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.40 to 6.04; P = 4.1 × 10-3), pancreatic cancer (RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.50; P = 8.7 × 10-3), and male breast cancer (RR, 7.34; 95% CI, 1.28 to 42.18; P = 2.6 × 10-2). There was no evidence for increased risks of prostate or colorectal cancer. The breast cancer RRs declined with age (P for trend = 2.0 × 10-3). After adjusting for family ascertainment, breast cancer risk estimates on the basis of multiple case families were similar to the estimates from families ascertained through population-based studies (P for difference = .41). On the basis of the combined data, the estimated risks to age 80 years were 53% (95% CI, 44% to 63%) for female breast cancer, 5% (95% CI, 2% to 10%) for ovarian cancer, 2%-3% (95% CI females, 1% to 4%; 95% CI males, 2% to 5%) for pancreatic cancer, and 1% (95% CI, 0.2% to 5%) for male breast cancer.
CONCLUSION: These results confirm PALB2 as a major breast cancer susceptibility gene and establish substantial associations between germline PALB2 PVs and ovarian, pancreatic, and male breast cancers. These findings will facilitate incorporation of PALB2 into risk prediction models and optimize the clinical cancer risk management of PALB2 PV carriers.
METHODS: We used data from 3,184 BRCA1 and 2,157 BRCA2 families in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 to estimate age-specific relative (RR) and absolute risks for 22 first primary cancer types adjusting for family ascertainment.
RESULTS: BRCA1 PVs were associated with risks of male breast (RR = 4.30; 95% CI, 1.09 to 16.96), pancreatic (RR = 2.36; 95% CI, 1.51 to 3.68), and stomach (RR = 2.17; 95% CI, 1.25 to 3.77) cancers. Associations with colorectal and gallbladder cancers were also suggested. BRCA2 PVs were associated with risks of male breast (RR = 44.0; 95% CI, 21.3 to 90.9), stomach (RR = 3.69; 95% CI, 2.40 to 5.67), pancreatic (RR = 3.34; 95% CI, 2.21 to 5.06), and prostate (RR = 2.22; 95% CI, 1.63 to 3.03) cancers. The stomach cancer RR was higher for females than males (6.89 v 2.76; P = .04). The absolute risks to age 80 years ranged from 0.4% for male breast cancer to approximately 2.5% for pancreatic cancer for BRCA1 carriers and from approximately 2.5% for pancreatic cancer to 27% for prostate cancer for BRCA2 carriers.
CONCLUSION: In addition to female breast and ovarian cancers, BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs are associated with increased risks of male breast, pancreatic, stomach, and prostate (only BRCA2 PVs) cancers, but not with the risks of other previously suggested cancers. The estimated age-specific risks will refine cancer risk management in men and women with BRCA1/2 PVs.