Male breast cancer: follow-up recommendations after surgery.
Authors: Laronga C , Lee MC , Park CK , Kiluk J , Meade T , Boulware D , Minton S , Harris E 
Published: December 2010

Abstract
Abstract #4130
Introduction: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for female breast cancer treatment and surveillance are well established, but data on male breast cancers are not collected. As an NCCN institution, our objective was to examine practice patterns and follow-up for male breast cancer.&#x2028; Methods: After IRB approval, a prospective breast database from 1990-2008 was queried for male patients. Medical records were examined for traditional factors (TNM, receptor status, treatment, gynecomastia) and follow-up practices such as mammogram use. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with 95% confidence intervals (CI) generated for 5-yr estimates. The logrank test was used to compare node positive/negative cohorts.&#x2028; Results: Of the 19,132 patients in the database, 71 (0.4%) were male; 64 had complete data. The median age for the 64 patients was 68.8yrs (range 29-85yrs). 89.1% presented with a palpable mass. 12.5% had gynecomastia in the cancer breast and 9.4% had contralateral gynecomastia. 18/64 (28.1%) had a familial history of breast, ovarian or colon cancer. One patient had bilateral synchronous breast cancer. Seven (10.9%) had previous prostate cancer and 4 (6.25%) had other synchronous cancers (2 papillary thyroid, 2 lung). Genetic testing was offered to all 64; 3 accepted. Two men had contralateral prophylactic mastectomy years later. The mean/median invasive tumor size was 2.0/1.6cm (range 0.0-10.0cm) and all but 2 tumors were ductal. 63 had a mastectomy (65.1% with axillary node dissection; 34.9% with sentinel lymph node biopsy). Lymph node involvement occurred in 25/64 (39.1%). Under NCCN guidelines, 49/64 (76.6%) should receive chemotherapy and chest wall radiation should be given to 27/64 (42.2%) based on tumor size and nodal status. Chemotherapy was offered to 50.0%; 35.9% received chemotherapy. Chest wall radiation was given in 59.3%. 63/64 were ER positive; 49 (77.8%) received hormone therapy. Follow-up annual mammograms were obtained in 27/64 (42.2%)[all BIRADs 1 or 2], not obtained in 28/64 (43.8%), and unknown in 9/64 (14.0%). Median follow-up was 26.1mos (range: 0.26-377.8mos). The 5-yr survival estimates and 95% CI for node positive and negative diseases were 75% (95% CI=46-90%) and 93% (95% CI=74-98%) respectively. For comparison, 5-yr survival rates from the NSABP B-04 trial were 60% in node-positive and 75% in node-negative disease. Four patients (6.3%) died of disease; 10 (15.6%) are alive with distant disease; 47 (73.4%) have no evidence of disease; and 3 (4.7%) are unknown or dead of other causes. There were 2 local recurrences (3.1%) [1 chest wall, 1 in-breast] and no metachronous contralateral breast cancer development. Conclusions: Male breast cancer is uncommon, as is contralateral breast cancer. Men were less likely to receive/accept chemotherapy/hormone therapy/genetic testing/annual mammograms and more likely to receive radiation based on NCCN guidelines, but survival compared to historic females was no worse. Creation of follow-up guidelines for males may be different than females.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 4130.