Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 83, No. 4, 2012
Issue release date: August 2012

Male Breast Cancer: Immunohistochemical Subtypes and Clinical Outcome Characterization

Sánchez-Muñoz A. · Román-Jobacho A. · Pérez-Villa L. · Sánchez-Rovira P. · Miramón J. · Pérez D. · Sáez M.-I. · de Luque V. · Medina L. · Ramírez-Tortosa C.L. · Vicioso L. · Medina J.A. · Ribelles N. · Alba E.
To view the fulltext, log in and/or choose pay-per-view option

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the molecular subtype profiles of male breast cancer (MBC) and subsequent clinical outcome using a validated 6-marker immunohistochemical panel. Methods: A total of 43 cases of MBC were examined retrospectively using a semiquantitative immunohistochemical analysis of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), Ki-67, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2), epidermal growth factor receptor and cytokeratin 5/6. Patients were classified into the following categories: luminal A, luminal B, Her2-positive or basal-like subtypes. Results: The median age of patients was 63 years (r: 32–89). The predominant histology was invasive ductal carcinoma (91%). Only 1 patient had advanced breast cancer at diagnosis. Ninety-three percent were ER-positive and 84% were PR-positive. Two patients had tumors that were ER- and PR-negative. The distribution of tumor molecular subtypes was 19 (44%) luminal A, 22 (51%) luminal B and 2 (5%) basal-like. The Her2-positive tumor subtype was not identified. The clinicopathological characteristics did not differ significantly between tumor subtypes A and B. There were no significant differences in 6-year disease-free survival (74 vs. 82%, p = 0.77) or overall survival (74 vs. 82%, p = 0.69) between luminal A and luminal B subtypes, respectively. Conclusion: The most common subtypes in our cohort of MBC were luminal B followed by luminal A, and no differences were found between both tumor subtypes in terms of clinicopathologic characteristics and patient outcome.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Korde LA, Zujewski JA, Kamin L, et al: Multidisciplinary meeting on male breast cancer: summary and research recommendations. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2114–2122.

    External Resources

  2. Giordano SH: A review of the diagnosis and management of male breast cancer. Oncologist 2005;10:471–479.
  3. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MD, et al: Molecular portraits of human breast tumors. Nature 2000;406:747–752.
  4. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al: Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:10869–10874.
  5. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, et al: Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003;100:8418–8423.
  6. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, et al: Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:5678–5685.
  7. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, et al: The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:2329–2334.
  8. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, et al: Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:5367–5374.
  9. Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C, et al: Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:1368–1376.
  10. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, et al: Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:736–750.
  11. Voduc KD, Cheang MC, Tyldesley S, et al: Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of local and regional relapse. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1684–1691.
  12. Ge Y, Sneige N, Eltorky MA, et al: Immunohistochemical characterization of subtypes of male breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res 2009;11:R28.

    External Resources

  13. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, et al: Strategies for subtypes – dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1736–1747.
  14. de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G Jr, et al: Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer 2007;96:1504–1513.
  15. Stuart-Harris R, Caldas C, Pinder SE, Pharoah P: Proliferation markers and survival in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 85 studies in 32,825 patients. Breast 2008;17:323–334.
  16. Kornegoor R, Verschuur-Maes AH, Buerger H, et al: Molecular subtyping of male breast cancer by immunohistochemistry. Mod Pathol 2012;25:398–404.
  17. Giordano SH, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi GN: Breast cancer in men. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:678–687.
  18. Curigliano G, Colleoni M, Renne G, et al: Recognizing features that are dissimilar in male and female breast cancer: expression of p21Waf1 and p27Kip1 using an immunohistochemical assay. Ann Oncol 2002;13:895–902.
  19. Farhat GN, Cummings SR, Chlebowski RT, et al: Sex hormone levels and risks of estrogen receptor-negative and estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:562–570.
  20. Callari M, Cappelletti V, De Cecco L, et al: Gene expression analysis reveals a different transcriptomic landscape in female and male breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;127:601–610.
  21. Vetto J, Jun SY, Paduch D, Eppich H, Shih R: Stages at presentation, prognostic factors, and outcome of breast cancer in males. Am J Surg 1999;177:379–383.
  22. Bloom KJ, Govil H, Gattuso P, Reddy V, Francescatti D: Status of HER-2 in male and female breast carcinoma. Am J Surg 2001;182:389–392.
  23. Muir D, Kanthan R, Kanthan SC: Male versus female breast cancers. A population-based comparative immunohistochemical analysis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:36–41.
  24. Rudlowski C, Friedrichs N, Faridi A, et al: Her-2/neu gene amplification and protein expression in primary male breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004;84:215–223.
  25. Ciocca V, Bombonati A, Gatalica Z, et al: Cytokeratin profiles of male breast cancers. Histopathology 2006;49:365–370.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50