Nomogram Predicts the Role of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Male Patients With Unilateral Breast Cancer Based on SEER Database: A Competing Risk Analysis

Kunlong Li; Bin Wang; Zejian Yang; Ren Yu; Heyan Chen; Yijun Li; Jianjun He; Can Zhou

doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.587797

Nomogram Predicts the Role of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Male Patients With Unilateral Breast Cancer Based on SEER Database: A Competing Risk Analysis

Front Oncol. 2021 Apr 29:11:587797. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.587797. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Kunlong Li^{1

2}, Bin Wang¹, Zejian Yang^{1

2}, Ren Yu¹, Heyan Chen^{1

2}, Yijun Li^{1

2}, Jianjun He¹, Can Zhou¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Breast Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
² School of Medicine, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.

Abstract

Background: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in female breast cancer (FBC) is supported by multiple clinical studies and consensus guidelines, but knowledge of preventive contralateral mastectomy in male breast cancer (MaBC) is very limited and its benefits are still controversial.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was enrolled with 4,405 MaBC patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy (UM) or CPM from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 1998 to 2015. A nomogram was built based on the corresponding parameters by competing risks regression to predict the 3-year, 5-year, and 8-year probabilities of BCSD (breast cancer-specific death). C-index and calibration curves were chosen for validation. Net reclassification index (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were used to estimate the nomogram's clinical utility.

Results: A total of 4,197 patients received UM and 208 patients received CPM, with 63-months median follow-up. In the competing risks regression, six variables (surgery, marital status, T-stage, N-stage, histology, tumor grade) were significantly associated with BCSD. Based on these independent prognosis factors, a nomogram model was constructed. The C-index 0.75 (95%CI: 0.73-0.77) in the training cohort and 0.73 (95%CI: 0.71-0.74) in the internal validation group suggested robustness of the model. In addition, the calibration curves exhibited favorably. The NRI values (training cohort: 0.54 for 3-year, 0.55 for 5-year, and 0.49 for 8-year BCSD prediction; validation cohort: 0.51 for 3-year, 0.45 for 5-year, and 0.33 for 8-year BCSD prediction) and IDI values (training cohort: 0.02 for 3-year, 0.03 for 5-year, and 0.04 for 8-year BCSD prediction; validation cohort: 0.02 for 3-year, 0.04 for 5-year, and 0.04 for 8-year BCSD prediction) indicated that the model performed better than the AJCC criteria-based tumor staging alone.

Conclusions: The administration of CPM was associated with the decrease in risk of BCSD in patients with MaBC. The nomogram could provide a precise and personalized prediction of the cumulative risk in patients with MaBC after CPM.

Keywords: SEER; competing risk analysis; contralateral prophylactic mastectomy; male breast cancer; nomogram.