Second primary breast cancer after diagnosis of breast cancer among male patients: An examination of population characteristics and overall survival

Amit K Chowdhry; Divya N Chowdhry; Michelle Shayne; Michael T Milano

doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100551

Second primary breast cancer after diagnosis of breast cancer among male patients: An examination of population characteristics and overall survival

EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Sep 20:27:100551. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100551. eCollection 2020 Oct.

Authors

Amit K Chowdhry¹, Divya N Chowdhry², Michelle Shayne³, Michael T Milano¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 647, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.
² Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
³ Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.

Abstract

Background: Male patients with breast cancer (BrC) have increased risk of developing 2nd-primary BrC (2nd-BrC). Given the relative rarity of male BrC, population-based registries are needed to analyze overall survival (OS) outcomes for these patients.

Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry of patients diagnosed from 1975 to 2016, a cohort study of men whose only malignancy was BrC (BrC-O; n = 6,475), and men who developed 2nd-BrC after initial BrC diagnosis (BrC-2; n = 85) was performed. The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 2nd-BrC, Kaplan-Meier OS and multivariable Cox regression modelling were performed.

Findings: The SIR for 2nd-BrC was 32.95 (95%CI:[23.85-44.38],p < 0.05). The majority (88%) of 2nd-BrC for BrC-2 were contralateral from 1st-BrC; suggesting the unlikeliness of miscoding local recurrences as 2nd-BrC for most patients. There was no statistically significant difference between rates of hormone (reported in 44%) or HER-2 (reported in 33%) receptor status between BrC-O and BrC-2, albeit with limited data. The 2nd-BrC for BrC-2 was significantly more likely to be localized or distant stage (rather than regional) than BrC-O. Median OS was 103 months (95% CI: [99, 108]) for BrC-O and 62 months (95% CI [49, 128] after 2nd-BrC. When sub-grouped by BrC stage, and when analyzed by Cox regression, there was no significant difference in OS between BrC-O and BrC-2.

Interpretation: Patients with male BrC are at significantly increased risk of 2nd BrC, but they can expect similar post-BrC prognosis (versus those without 2nd-BrC), after adjusting for patient demographics and tumor characteristics known to affect OS.

Funding: None.