Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42518938›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026

Clinicopathological, multimodal treatment, and survival patterns for men with breast cancer in England and Wales: a population-based cohort study.

Jemma M Boyle, Diana Withrow, Sarah Blacker, Liyang Wang, Christine Delon, Jibby Medina, David Dodwell, Mark Verrill, Kieran Horgan, David A Cromwell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jemma M BoyleNational Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
Diana WithrowNational Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
Sarah BlackerNational Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
Liyang WangNational Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
Christine DelonNational Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
Jibby MedinaNational Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
David DodwellNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mark VerrillNorthern Centre for Cancer Care, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
Kieran HorganDepartment of Breast Surgery, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
David A CromwellNational Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Male breast cancer (BC) is rare and understudied, and the incidence is increasing. This study evaluated clinicopathological, multimodal treatment and survival patterns for men with BC (versus women) in England and Wales as part of the National Audit of Primary Breast Cancer (NAoPri). This audit is commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership on behalf of NHS England and the Welsh government. Methods: This retrospective population-based cohort study used pseudonymised patient- and tumour-level data for all adults (≥18 years) who were newly diagnosed (as per ICD-10 codes C50 and D05.1) with BC between Jan 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2021 in England and Wales, supplied by the English National Cancer Registries and Analysis Services (NCRAS) and Wales Cancer Network (WCN), respectively. Cancer registration data were linked to various national datasets. Risk-adjusted treatment patterns for men and women with oestrogen-receptor (ER) positive early invasive breast cancer (EIBC) were analysed using multivariable logistic regression. Flexible parametric survival models and competing risk analysis estimated 5-year overall and cause-specific survival. Findings: Of the 340,164 people diagnosed during the study period, 2463 men (England: 2346, Wales: 117) were compared to 337,701 women. Men were older with more comorbidities and increased frailty burden. Men had more locally advanced, higher-grade, ER-positive, HER2-negative disease. Men with ER-positive EIBC had more surgery after age 70 years, less frequently received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.63; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.44-0.90) and more often received post-mastectomy radiotherapy for intermediate- and low-risk disease (aOR 1.28; 1.05-1.56 and aOR 2.61; 2.19-3.12). Endocrine therapy use was equivalent (aOR 1.46; 0.92-2.32). Breast cancer-specific death was comparable for men and women, respectively (standardised cumulative incidence function [CIF] 3.6% [95% CI: 2.9%-4.5%] vs 4.6% [4.5%-4.7%]). Death from other causes was greater in men (standardised CIF 12.0% [10.8%-13.2%] vs 7.7% [7.6%-7.8%]). Interpretation: These findings show that men with breast cancer presented differently to women. Despite breast cancer-specific survival being comparable for men and women, there were notable differences in the management of men with ER-positive EIBC which require further exploration, including increased surgery among older men, reduced neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, and increased post-mastectomy radiotherapy for intermediate- and low-risk disease. Funding: None.

Indexed as

EpidemiologyMale breast cancerPopulation-based studyRare cancerSurvival

Identifiers

PMID42518938
PMCPMC13382045

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.