Mariam F Eskander1, Yaming Li1, Oindrila Bhattacharyya2, Allan Tsung1, Bridget A Oppong1, Ahmad Hamad1, Margaret Gatti-Mays3, Samilia Obeng-Gyasi4. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, N924 Doan Hall, 410 West 10th, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. 2. Department of Economics, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 4. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, N924 Doan Hall, 410 West 10th, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. samilia.obeng-gyasi@osumc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Black breast cancer patients have worse clinical outcomes than their White counterparts. There are few studies comparing clinical outcomes between Black male breast cancer (MBC) and female breast cancer (FBC) patients. The objective of this study is to examine differences in presentation, treatment, and mortality between Black MBC and FBC. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for all Black MBC and FBC patients, ages 18-90, with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2016. Hormone receptor positivity was defined as estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone-positive and HER 2-negative cancer. Sociodemographic and clinical variables were compared between MBC and FBC patients on bivariable analysis. After propensity score matching, overall survival was evaluated using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: Compared to FBC patients, MBC patients had higher rates of metastatic disease (stage 4, MBC 4.4% vs. FBC 2.6%, p < 0.001), larger tumors (tumor size < 2 cm, MBC 32.1 vs. FBC 49.1%, p < 0.001) and a higher percentage of poorly differentiated tumors (grade 3, MBC 28.5% vs. FBC 21.4%, p < 0.001). MBC patients had lower rates of hormone therapy (MBC 66.4% vs. FBC 80.7%, p < 0.001) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (MBC 5.8% vs. FBC 7.5%, p = 0.05) than FBC. On propensity score matched analysis, Black MBC patients had a higher overall mortality (p25 of 60 months vs. 74 months) compared to FBC patients (p = 0.0260). CONCLUSION: Among hormone receptor-positive Black MBC and FBC patients, there are sex-based disparities in stage, hormone therapy use and overall survival.
PURPOSE: Black breast cancer patients have worse clinical outcomes than their White counterparts. There are few studies comparing clinical outcomes between Black male breast cancer (MBC) and female breast cancer (FBC) patients. The objective of this study is to examine differences in presentation, treatment, and mortality between Black MBC and FBC. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for all Black MBC and FBC patients, ages 18-90, with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2016. Hormone receptor positivity was defined as estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone-positive and HER 2-negative cancer. Sociodemographic and clinical variables were compared between MBC and FBC patients on bivariable analysis. After propensity score matching, overall survival was evaluated using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: Compared to FBC patients, MBC patients had higher rates of metastatic disease (stage 4, MBC 4.4% vs. FBC 2.6%, p < 0.001), larger tumors (tumor size < 2 cm, MBC 32.1 vs. FBC 49.1%, p < 0.001) and a higher percentage of poorly differentiated tumors (grade 3, MBC 28.5% vs. FBC 21.4%, p < 0.001). MBC patients had lower rates of hormone therapy (MBC 66.4% vs. FBC 80.7%, p < 0.001) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (MBC 5.8% vs. FBC 7.5%, p = 0.05) than FBC. On propensity score matched analysis, Black MBC patients had a higher overall mortality (p25 of 60 months vs. 74 months) compared to FBC patients (p = 0.0260). CONCLUSION: Among hormone receptor-positive Black MBC and FBC patients, there are sex-based disparities in stage, hormone therapy use and overall survival.
Authors: Fei Wang; Sonya Reid; Wei Zheng; Tuya Pal; Ingrid Meszoely; Ingrid A Mayer; Christina E Bailey; Ben Ho Park; Xiao-Ou Shu Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: F Cardoso; J M S Bartlett; L Slaets; C H M van Deurzen; E van Leeuwen-Stok; P Porter; B Linderholm; I Hedenfalk; C Schröder; J Martens; J Bayani; C van Asperen; M Murray; C Hudis; L Middleton; J Vermeij; K Punie; J Fraser; M Nowaczyk; I T Rubio; S Aebi; C Kelly; K J Ruddy; E Winer; C Nilsson; L Dal Lago; L Korde; K Benstead; O Bogler; T Goulioti; A Peric; S Litière; K C Aalders; C Poncet; K Tryfonidis; S H Giordano Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jon M Greif; Christopher M Pezzi; V Suzanne Klimberg; Lisa Bailey; Marlene Zuraek Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Joseph A Sparano; Molin Wang; Fengmin Zhao; Vered Stearns; Silvana Martino; Jennifer A Ligibel; Edith A Perez; Tom Saphner; Antonio C Wolff; George W Sledge; William C Wood; Nancy E Davidson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Xiaocheng Wu; Lisa C Richardson; Amy R Kahn; John P Fulton; Rosemary D Cress; Tiefu Shen; Holly J Wolf; Susan Bolick-Aldrich; Vivien W Chen Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Elizabeth B Elimimian; Leah Elson; Hong Li; Hong Liang; Nadeem Bilani; Emily C Zabor; Abby Statler; Zeina Nahleh Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 5.400
Authors: Edward Yu; Larry Stitt; Olga Vujovic; Kurian Joseph; Avi Assouline; Jawaid Younus; Francisco Perera; Patricia Tai Journal: Cureus Date: 2015-10-16