Male Breast Carcinoma
Introduction
Section titled “Introduction”Male breast carcinoma (MBC) is a rare malignancy, accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancer diagnoses. Despite its low incidence compared to female breast cancer (FBC), MBC represents a significant health concern with distinct biological and genetic underpinnings.[1]The rarity of MBC has historically led to a paucity of dedicated research, often resulting in treatment and diagnostic approaches extrapolated from FBC studies. However, recent advancements in genetic epidemiology are shedding light on its unique etiology, emphasizing the need for a focused understanding of this disease.
Biological Basis
Section titled “Biological Basis”The biological profile of MBC often differs from FBC. A greater proportion of MBCs are of the estrogen receptor (ER)–positive subtype, exceeding 95% compared to approximately 75% in FBC, suggesting that MBC may comprise a more homogeneous group of tumors.[1] Genetic susceptibility is a crucial risk factor, with family history playing a significant role.[1] Inherited mutations in BRCA2 are particularly relevant, accounting for approximately 10% of MBC cases, whereas BRCA1 mutations are observed less frequently.[1] This disparity in BRCA1 and BRCA2 involvement highlights fundamental differences in the underlying genetic etiologies between MBC and FBC.[1]Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified common germline variants that influence susceptibility to MBC. For instance, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at loci such as 14q24.1 (involving theRAD51B gene) and 16q12.1 (TOX3) have been significantly associated with MBC risk.[1]Notably, while some of these loci are also linked to FBC susceptibility, they often confer greater risks of breast cancer in men than in women, suggesting a stronger contribution of genetic variation to MBC predisposition.[1] Other identified predisposition loci include 6q25.1 and 11q13.3.[1] The heritability of MBC attributable to common SNPs has been estimated, showing a strong genetic correlation with ER-positive FBC.[1]
Clinical Relevance
Section titled “Clinical Relevance”Understanding the genetic basis of MBC is clinically relevant for several reasons. The identification of specific genetic variants and predisposition loci can improve risk assessment models for men, particularly those with a family history of breast cancer. Such insights can potentially lead to more targeted screening strategies and earlier detection. Furthermore, the distinct genetic landscape of MBC, including its high ER-positivity and specific genetic correlations, suggests that treatment approaches tailored to MBC’s unique biology may be more effective than generic strategies derived from FBC. Research into polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for MBC, often adapted from FBC data, indicates their utility in identifying men at higher risk, especially those with ER-positive disease.[1] Functional studies examining gene expression differences in male and female breast tissue for candidate target genes also provide insights into sex-specific risk effects.[1]
Social Importance
Section titled “Social Importance”Despite its rarity, MBC carries substantial social importance. The disease often presents at a more advanced stage due to a lack of awareness and screening protocols for men, leading to poorer prognoses. Research into the genetic and biological distinctions of MBC helps to raise awareness, reduce diagnostic delays, and foster improved patient outcomes. Recognizing the unique genetic contributions to MBC ensures that affected men receive appropriate counseling, risk assessment, and personalized care, moving beyond a “one-size-fits-all” approach based solely on FBC. Continued research is vital to develop specific diagnostic tools, preventive measures, and therapeutic strategies that address the particular needs of men with breast cancer, ultimately improving their quality of life and survival rates.
Methodological and Statistical Power Constraints
Section titled “Methodological and Statistical Power Constraints”A significant limitation in genetic studies of male breast carcinoma is the relatively small sample sizes compared to typical genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for more common cancers. This constraint inherently restricts the statistical power to detect predisposition loci that exert only small effects on risk, necessitating much larger cohorts for their discovery. While the importance of identifying even small-effect alleles for biological understanding is acknowledged, the practical utility of such findings in clinical settings remains a subject of ongoing debate.[1]Furthermore, specific methodological details, such as the omission of control and case minor allele frequencies (MAFs) for meta-analyzed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at the joint analysis stage, can limit certain comparative interpretations.
The power limitations also manifest in the inability to consistently detect associations for SNPs strongly linked to female breast cancer (FBC), even for those with large odds ratios in FBC.[1]For instance, several SNPs strongly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive FBC, likers2981578 at 10q26.13, were not significantly associated with male breast carcinoma, despite having effect sizes that should theoretically be detectable.[1]This suggests that the current study designs, despite meta-analyses, may still lack sufficient power to fully capture the complex genetic architecture underlying male breast carcinoma, making it likely that additional risk variants are yet to be identified.[2]
Generalizability and Phenotypic Characterization
Section titled “Generalizability and Phenotypic Characterization”The generalizability of findings from current male breast carcinoma studies is primarily limited by the demographic characteristics of the participating cohorts, which largely consist of individuals of European ancestry.[1], [2] While these studies provide valuable insights into the genetic landscape within this population, their direct applicability to other ancestral groups remains uncertain, potentially overlooking population-specific risk variants or different effect sizes.[1], [2] Future research efforts need to incorporate more diverse populations to ensure broader relevance and to identify genetic factors that might be unique or have varied impacts across different ancestries.
Moreover, while male breast carcinoma is predominantly of the ER-positive subtype, the intricate relationship between various genetic variants and tumor characteristics, such as ER status, is not fully elucidated.[1]For example, some identified SNPs show stronger associations with ER-negative FBC, while others strongly linked to ER-positive FBC show no association with male breast carcinoma.[1] This suggests potential sex-specific biological differences in gene expression or activity, or distinct endogenous factors influencing the etiological mechanisms.[1] The reliance on female controls for autosomal SNP frequencies, although justified by their shared ancestral frequencies, also underscores the need for careful consideration of how genetic backgrounds might subtly differ between sexes even for shared genetic variants.[1]
Etiological Complexity and Remaining Knowledge Gaps
Section titled “Etiological Complexity and Remaining Knowledge Gaps”Despite advances, the overall etiology of male breast carcinoma remains poorly understood, with a significant portion of its heritability still unexplained by common genetic variants.[1] While genetic susceptibility and family history are recognized as important risk factors, the precise interplay of genetic, environmental, and gene-environment factors is largely unknown.[1]This gap in understanding limits the ability to fully delineate the biological pathways driving the disease and to develop comprehensive risk prediction models. The observed differences in genetic associations between male and female breast cancer, such as the lower expression ofFGFR2 in male breast tissue, highlight the complexity of sex-specific biological contexts that influence genetic risk.[1]Further challenges arise in the functional interpretation of identified risk loci, as illuminating the specific target genes and underlying pathways is difficult due to a scarcity of relevant research tools, such as male breast carcinoma cell line models.[1] Even when eQTL associations are explored, breast-specific links to target genes are not always evident, pointing to potential sex-specific differences in gene expression or activity that are not yet fully characterized.[1]These remaining knowledge gaps underscore the need for continued investment in basic and translational research to unravel the intricate biological mechanisms contributing to male breast carcinoma susceptibility.
Variants
Section titled “Variants”Genetic variants play a significant role in determining an individual’s susceptibility to male breast carcinoma (MBC). Research has identified several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and their associated genes that contribute to the genetic architecture of this rare cancer, often overlapping with risk factors for female breast cancer (FBC) but sometimes showing sex-specific effects.
Variants influencing DNA repair and transcriptional regulation contribute to MBC risk. The variant rs1314913 , located within intron seven of the RAD51B gene on chromosome 14q24.1, has been significantly associated with MBC risk, demonstrating an odds ratio of 1.57.[2] RAD51B is a crucial component of the homologous recombination pathway, essential for repairing DNA double-strand breaks and maintaining genomic integrity. The minor allele of rs1314913 is thought to abrogate DNA binding sites, potentially influencing gene regulation, and its association with MBC might be linked to the role of AP-1 in modulating estrogen signaling and transcription.[2] Another notable variant, rs3803662 , located at 16q12.1 and localizing to the TOX3 gene, also confers a significantly increased risk for MBC.[2] The effect of rs3803662 is notably greater in males (odds ratio = 1.50) compared to females (odds ratio = 1.20), suggesting sex-specific differences in its impact.[2] TOX3(TOX high mobility group family member 3) is a transcription factor implicated in neuronal development and has been linked to breast cancer susceptibility, potentially influencing cell growth or survival pathways.
The 11q13.3 locus harbors several variants influencing MBC risk, including rs78540526 and rs554219 , which have been significantly associated with MBC, showing odds ratios of 1.61 and 1.45, respectively.[2] These variants are located near CCND1 (Cyclin D1), a gene critical for regulating cell cycle progression from G1 to S phase. Overexpression of CCND1can lead to uncontrolled cell proliferation, a hallmark of cancer. Whilers78540526 is correlated with the FBC SNP rs75915166 , rs554219 has been reported to independently influence FBC risk, suggesting distinct mechanisms or pathways involved in male and female breast cancer development at this locus.[2] At 10p12.31, the variant rs2183271 demonstrates a strong association with MBC risk (P = 2.69 x 10^-07), being more strongly associated with MBC than the corresponding lead FBC SNP, rs7072776 , indicating a potentially greater impact in males.[2] This variant is near MLLT10 (Myeloid/Lymphoid or Mixed-Lineage Leukemia; Translocated To, 10), a transcriptional coactivator often involved in chromosomal translocations in various cancers, whose dysregulation can contribute to aberrant gene expression and cell growth pathways.
The 6q25.1 locus is a critical region for MBC susceptibility, notably encompassing the ESR1gene, which encodes the estrogen receptor alpha. Given that the vast majority of MBCs are estrogen receptor-positive, variants affectingESR1 function are highly relevant.[2] The variant rs9383938 at 6q25.1 is significantly associated with MBC risk (P = 2.93 x 10^-09, OR = 1.47) and acts as a proxy for rs9371545 .[1] Also within the 6q25.1 region, the CCDC170 gene is a candidate target, and its expression shows sex-biased differences, being higher in males than females.[2] The variant rs3757322 at this locus is independently associated with MBC risk (P = 6.23 x 10^-09) and showed a borderline association with CCDC170 expression.[2] While rs9397437 is also located in this significant region, its precise role in MBC risk is likely mediated through its influence on the expression or function of nearby genes like ESR1 or CCDC170, which are known to be involved in hormone signaling and breast development.
The variant rs903263 is associated with male breast carcinoma, potentially influencing the activity of thePRKACB gene. PRKACBencodes a catalytic subunit of Protein Kinase A (PKA), an enzyme central to cAMP-dependent signaling pathways that regulate diverse cellular processes, including cell growth, metabolism, and differentiation. Dysregulation of PKA signaling has been implicated in various cancers by affecting cell proliferation and survival. The identification of such variants contributes to understanding the complex genetic landscape of male breast cancer, a condition for which common germline variants are known to influence susceptibility.[2]Studies have identified multiple loci influencing male breast cancer risk, highlighting the importance of genetic factors in its etiology.[2]
Key Variants
Section titled “Key Variants”| RS ID | Gene | Related Traits |
|---|---|---|
| rs3803662 | CASC16 | breast carcinoma male breast carcinoma |
| rs1314913 | RAD51B | male breast carcinoma |
| rs78540526 rs554219 rs75915166 | LINC01488 - CCND1 | breast carcinoma male breast carcinoma cervical carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, biliary tract cancer, pancreatic carcinoma, ovarian cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, breast carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, esophageal cancer, endometrial cancer, gastric cancer breast cancer |
| rs9383938 | ESR1 | breast carcinoma male breast carcinoma breast cancer, TP53 mutation status |
| rs9397437 | CCDC170 - ESR1 | estrogen-receptor negative breast cancer breast carcinoma breast size male breast carcinoma cancer |
| rs3757322 | CCDC170 | breast carcinoma estrogen-receptor negative breast cancer male breast carcinoma bone tissue density |
| rs2183271 | MLLT10 | multisite chronic pain educational attainment male breast carcinoma taste liking measurement self reported educational attainment |
| rs903263 | PRKACB | male breast carcinoma |
Defining Male Breast Carcinoma and Its Characteristics
Section titled “Defining Male Breast Carcinoma and Its Characteristics”Male breast carcinoma (MBC) is precisely defined as a rare malignancy originating in the glandular tissue of the male breast, accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancer diagnoses.[1]This low prevalence distinguishes it significantly from female breast cancer (FBC), though both share fundamental pathological characteristics. The conceptual framework for MBC acknowledges its rarity while recognizing that its underlying biology, while distinct in some aspects, often parallels FBC, particularly regarding hormonal influences. Key terms like “MBC” and “FBC” are standard nomenclature, with “estrogen receptor” (ER) being a critical related concept for classification.
MBC is often considered a more homogeneous disease group compared to FBC, primarily due to a striking predominance of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors. Over 95% of MBCs are ER-positive, in contrast to approximately 75% of FBCs, which has significant implications for both treatment strategies and research into its etiology.[1] This high proportion of ER-positive tumors suggests a strong hormonal component in MBC development, guiding diagnostic criteria and therapeutic approaches that often involve endocrine therapies. Understanding this characteristic homogeneity is crucial for both clinical management and for developing targeted research strategies to uncover specific risk factors and pathways unique to MBC.
Molecular Subtypes and Diagnostic Markers
Section titled “Molecular Subtypes and Diagnostic Markers”The primary classification system for male breast carcinoma, similar to female breast cancer, involves the assessment of molecular subtypes, with estrogen receptor (ER) status being the most critical diagnostic criterion. Tumors are categorized as ER-positive or ER-negative based on immunohistochemical staining, which detects the presence or absence of estrogen receptors on cancer cells. This distinction is paramount because ER-positive MBCs are typically responsive to anti-estrogen therapies, whereas ER-negative tumors require alternative treatment modalities.[1] This categorical approach to classification directly influences clinical decision-making and prognosis.
Beyond ER status, other immunohistochemical markers such as progesterone receptor (PR) and HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) are also assessed, though their prevalence and prognostic significance in MBC can differ from FBC. The operational definition of these markers involves specific thresholds and cut-off values determined by pathology guidelines to classify tumors accurately. The significance of these classifications extends to guiding targeted therapies, highlighting the importance of precise pathological diagnosis in tailoring effective treatment strategies for individual patients.
Genetic Etiology and Risk Stratification
Section titled “Genetic Etiology and Risk Stratification”The conceptual framework for MBC etiology heavily emphasizes genetic susceptibility, with family history and inherited mutations being recognized as important risk factors. Approximately 10% of MBC cases are attributable to inherited mutations in the BRCA2 gene, making it a significant diagnostic and prognostic biomarker.[3] Conversely, mutations in BRCA1 are observed in only a small number of cases, suggesting distinct genetic underpinnings between MBC and FBC for these specific high-penetrance genes.
Common germline variants also influence MBC susceptibility, and these are often identified through genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which utilize single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as measurement approaches for genetic variation.[4] Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which incorporate multiple SNPs, represent a dimensional approach to risk stratification, quantifying an individual’s cumulative genetic predisposition. These scores, standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1 in control populations, provide a continuous measure of risk, with higher scores indicating an increased likelihood of developing MBC.[1] Specific candidate target genes like TERT, ESR1, CCDC170, KLF4, FGFR2, ZFP36L1, CITED4 (rs4233486 ), and VGLL3 (rs13066793 ) have been identified at susceptibility loci, some exhibiting sex-biased expression in breast tissue, which may contribute to differential risks between men and women. . This high prevalence of ER-positive tumors suggests that MBC may represent a more homogeneous group of cancers compared to female breast cancers, where approximately 75% are ER-positive.[1]The ER status is a critical biomarker, assessed through immunohistochemistry on tissue samples, which guides treatment strategies and provides insight into the tumor’s biological characteristics. The consistent ER-positive phenotype in MBC has significant diagnostic implications, often serving as a key indicator of the tumor’s hormonal responsiveness and potential therapeutic targets. This homogeneity in ER status helps in classifying the disease and understanding its underlying biology.
Genetic Predisposition and Risk Assessment
Section titled “Genetic Predisposition and Risk Assessment”A substantial proportion of male breast carcinoma cases, approximately 10%, are linked to inherited mutations in theBRCA2gene, highlighting genetic susceptibility as a crucial factor in the disease’s etiology.[1] Conversely, mutations in BRCA1are observed in a smaller number of cases, indicating differences in the genetic underpinnings compared to female breast cancer.[1]These genetic predispositions are identified through molecular diagnostic tools such as sequencing for known mutations, contributing to the understanding of individual risk profiles. Beyond high-penetrance genes, common germline variants, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at loci like 14q24.1 and 16q12.1, are associated with MBC susceptibility.[1] These variants, including RAD51B (rs1048380 ) and TOX3 (rs3803662 ), have been identified through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and confer greater risks of breast cancer in men than in women.[1]Polygenic risk scores, calculated from a panel of such SNPs, serve as an objective measure to quantify cumulative genetic risk, with men in the highest quintile of genetic risk demonstrating an almost fourfold increased likelihood of developing breast cancer compared to those in the lowest quintile.[1]
Etiological Heterogeneity and Clinical Correlations
Section titled “Etiological Heterogeneity and Clinical Correlations”The genetic basis of male breast carcinoma exhibits elements of both shared and distinct etiologies when compared to female breast cancer, as evidenced by a strong genetic correlation between the two diseases, particularly with ER-positive female breast cancer.[1]This genetic correlation is stronger for ER-positive female breast cancer (rg = 0.82) than for ER-negative female breast cancer (rg = 0.47), aligning with the predominant ER-positive phenotype observed in MBC.[1]Such correlations provide diagnostic insights into shared genetic pathways and potential overlaps in disease mechanisms. Further etiological heterogeneity is suggested by sex-biased gene expression patterns of candidate target genes at predisposition loci. For instance,CITED4 at 1p34.2 and FGFR2 at 10q26.13 show higher expression in female than male breast tissue, while KLF4 at 9q31.2 and CCDC170 also exhibit sex-biased expression.[1]These differences in gene expression, assessed through RNA-sequencing data, contribute to understanding the distinct biological contexts of male and female breast cancer development, providing clues for future diagnostic and prognostic biomarker development.
Causes of Male Breast Carcinoma
Section titled “Causes of Male Breast Carcinoma”The etiology of male breast carcinoma (MBC) is complex, involving a combination of inherited genetic factors, polygenic risk, and sex-specific gene expression patterns. While the disease is rare, accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancer diagnoses, research indicates a significant genetic component to its development.[1]
Inherited Genetic Predisposition
Section titled “Inherited Genetic Predisposition”A substantial proportion of MBC cases are linked to inherited genetic factors, with family history being a significant risk factor.[3] Approximately 10% of MBC diagnoses are attributed to inherited mutations in the BRCA2 gene.[3]These mutations are known to dramatically increase breast cancer risk in both men and women. In contrast, mutations inBRCA1, while a major risk factor for female breast cancer, are observed in only a small number of MBC cases, suggesting distinct underlying genetic etiologies between the sexes.[3] Beyond these high-penetrance genes, common germline variants, identified through genome-wide association studies (GWAS), also significantly influence MBC susceptibility.[1]For instance, specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at loci such as 14q24.1 (including a variant inRAD51B) and 16q12.1 (including a variant in TOX3) have been strongly associated with an increased risk of MBC.[1]These variants often confer greater risks in men than in women, highlighting their particular relevance to male disease development.[1]
Polygenic Risk and Shared Genetic Architecture
Section titled “Polygenic Risk and Shared Genetic Architecture”MBC susceptibility also arises from a polygenic component, where the cumulative effect of many common genetic variants contributes to overall risk.[1]A polygenic risk score (PRS) incorporating 313 SNPs associated with female breast cancer (FBC) has demonstrated a strong association with MBC risk; men in the top quintile of genetic risk had an almost fourfold increased risk compared to those in the bottom quintile.[1] The heritability of MBC attributable to common SNPs is estimated to be 0.09 on the liability scale, which is comparable to estimates for FBC.[1]Furthermore, there is a strong genetic correlation between MBC and FBC, particularly with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive FBC, reflecting a shared genetic basis for these cancers.[1] While many susceptibility loci are shared, some SNPs show differential associations, with certain variants conferring greater risks for ER-negative FBC also linked to MBC, whereas some strongly ER-positive FBC associated SNPs show no association with MBC.[1]This indicates both shared and distinct genetic pathways contributing to breast cancer in men and women.
Gene Expression and Sex-Specific Mechanisms
Section titled “Gene Expression and Sex-Specific Mechanisms”Differences in gene expression between male and female breast tissues play a crucial role in influencing MBC risk, particularly in how genetic predispositions manifest.[1] The underlying etiological mechanisms affected by specific SNPs may be influenced by sex-specific differences in the expression or activity of their target genes. For example, the FGFR2 gene at 10q26.13, which is strongly associated with ER-positive FBC, exhibits comparatively lower expression in male breast tissue than in female breast tissue.[1] This reduced expression in males may explain the lack of an association between certain FGFR2 SNPs and MBC risk. Conversely, genes such as KLF4 at 9q31.2, CCDC170 at 6q25.1, and VGLL3 at 3p12.1 show higher expression in male breast tissue, and variations in their expression, often influenced by specific SNPs, can contribute to MBC risk.[1] For instance, the risk allele of rs13066793 at 3p12.1 is associated with reduced expression of VGLL3, a gene that may act as a tumor suppressor.[1]These sex-biased gene expression patterns highlight a mechanism by which genetic variants can exert different effects on breast cancer risk in men compared to women.
Genetic Predisposition and Etiology
Section titled “Genetic Predisposition and Etiology”Male breast carcinoma (MBC) is a rare disease, accounting for less than one percent of all breast cancer diagnoses.[1] Despite its rarity, family history and inherited genetic susceptibility are significant risk factors.[3] Approximately 10% of MBC cases are linked to inherited mutations in the BRCA2 gene, while BRCA1mutations are observed less frequently, suggesting distinct underlying genetic causes compared to female breast cancer (FBC).[3]Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified common germline variants, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), that influence MBC susceptibility, including loci at 14q24.1 and 16q12.1, which confer greater risks in men than women.[4] For instance, the RAD51B gene at 14q24.1 and TOX3 at 16q12.1 are recognized susceptibility loci, with the 14q24.1 locus having an odds ratio of 1.57 for MBC compared to 1.07 for FBC.[4] Recent research has further identified novel MBC predisposition loci at 6q25.1, 10p12.31, and 11q13.3, all of which are also associated with FBC risk, highlighting a shared genetic basis but with differential risk contributions.[4]
Hormonal and Receptor Signaling
Section titled “Hormonal and Receptor Signaling”A striking feature of MBC is its high prevalence of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors, with over 95% of MBCs being ER-positive, in contrast to approximately 75% of FBCs.[4]This predominance suggests that MBC may represent a more homogeneous disease group, with hormonal pathways playing a central role in its development. Genetic analyses reveal a strong correlation between MBC and ER-positive FBC, with a genetic correlation (rg) of 0.82, which is significantly stronger than the correlation with ER-negative FBC.[4] This is further supported by polygenic risk scores (PRS) where the ER-positive PRS demonstrated similar risk estimates for MBC as the overall PRS, while the ER-negative PRS was less strongly associated.[4]Key biomolecules implicated in these pathways include the estrogen receptor alpha (ESR1) located at 6q25.1 and the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) at 10q26.13, both identified as putative target genes for breast cancer predisposition loci.[4]
Cellular Regulation and Gene Expression
Section titled “Cellular Regulation and Gene Expression”The regulation of gene expression plays a critical role in MBC susceptibility, with sex-biased expression patterns observed for several candidate target genes in breast tissue.[4] For example, CITED4 at 1p34.2 and FGFR2 at 10q26.13 exhibit higher expression in female breast tissue, while KLF4 at 9q31.2 and CCDC170 at 6q25.1 show higher expression in male breast tissue.[4] CITED4 is a transcriptional coactivator involved in lactogenic differentiation of breast epithelial cells and milk transcription, indicating its role in mammary gland development and function.[4] Variations in the basal expression levels of these genes, or their activity, are hypothesized to contribute to the different risks observed between MBC and FBC.[4] For instance, the comparatively lower expression of FGFR2 in male breast tissue may explain why the SNP rs2981578 at 10q26.13, which is strongly associated with ER-positive FBC, does not show a significant association with MBC.[4] Furthermore, the risk allele of rs13066793 at 3p12.1 is associated with reduced expression of VGLL3, a gene that may function as a tumor suppressor.[4]
Tissue-Level Characteristics and Disease Progression
Section titled “Tissue-Level Characteristics and Disease Progression”The overall etiology of MBC is not fully understood, but current findings suggest a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and tissue-specific factors.[4] While MBC shares a strong genetic correlation with FBC, particularly the ER-positive subtype, there are distinct differences in risk conferred by specific genetic variants, highlighting the influence of sex-specific biological contexts.[4]The heritability of MBC due to common SNPs is estimated at 0.09, which is consistent with estimates for FBC, suggesting a similar contribution of common genetic variations to disease risk in both sexes.[4]The polygenic risk score distribution in male breast cancer cases closely resembles that of female cases, indicating a shared polygenic architecture for susceptibility.[4] However, the scarcity of male breast tumor cell line models presents a significant challenge for functional analyses to fully elucidate the target genes and pathways underlying MBC risk.[4]
Hormonal Signaling and Transcriptional Regulation
Section titled “Hormonal Signaling and Transcriptional Regulation”Male breast carcinoma (MBC) is predominantly characterized by its estrogen receptor (ER)-positive subtype, indicating a central role for estrogen signaling in its etiology.[1] The _ESR1_gene, which encodes the estrogen receptor, is regulated by breast cancer risk variants at locus 6q25.1.[5] This receptor activation initiates intracellular signaling cascades that ultimately influence gene expression through transcription factors. Another key player in gene regulation is _CITED4_, encoding a Cbp/p300-interacting transactivator. _CITED4_ acts as a transcriptional coactivator, induced during lactogenic differentiation of breast epithelial cells and involved in milk transcription.[6] Its expression is significantly higher in female breast tissue compared to male breast tissue.[1]suggesting a sex-biased regulatory mechanism that may influence disease susceptibility. Similarly,_KLF4_, a transcription factor, exhibits higher expression in male breast tissue.[1] implying its distinct role in the transcriptional landscape of the male mammary gland.
Cell Proliferation and Growth Factor Receptor Pathways
Section titled “Cell Proliferation and Growth Factor Receptor Pathways”Aberrant cell proliferation is a hallmark of cancer, often driven by dysregulated growth factor receptor signaling. The_FGFR2_ gene, encoding Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 2, is a critical component of such pathways. Variations at the _FGFR2_locus are associated with breast cancer risk, and putative functional variants at this locus differentially bind transcription factors_FOXA1_ and _E2F1_.[7] influencing its expression and subsequent signaling. _FGFR2_ itself shows higher expression in female breast tissue compared to male breast tissue.[1] Dysregulation of _FGFR2_ activity can lead to uncontrolled cell growth and survival, contributing to tumor development. The precise mechanisms by which these sex-biased expression patterns of _FGFR2_contribute to MBC, compared to female breast cancer, highlight the distinct biological contexts that drive the disease.
Genomic Stability and Tumor Suppressor Networks
Section titled “Genomic Stability and Tumor Suppressor Networks”Maintaining genomic integrity is crucial for preventing cancer, and defects in DNA repair pathways are significant contributors to carcinogenesis. Mutations in_BRCA2_ are a notable genetic risk factor, accounting for approximately 10% of MBC cases.[3] underscoring its essential role in homologous recombination and DNA damage repair. Beyond direct DNA repair, other genes contribute to tumor suppression. _VGLL3_ (vestigial-like protein 3) is a candidate target gene whose risk allele (rs13066793 ) is associated with reduced expression.[1] _VGLL3_has been implicated as a tumor suppressor gene in other cancers, such as high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.[8] suggesting a similar protective role in breast tissue. Furthermore, variants at the _TERT_locus, which is involved in telomere length maintenance, are associated with risks of both breast and ovarian cancer.[9]indicating a role for telomere biology in disease susceptibility.
Integrated Genetic Risk and Sex-Biased Gene Expression
Section titled “Integrated Genetic Risk and Sex-Biased Gene Expression”The etiology of MBC involves a complex interplay of genetic factors, with a strong genetic correlation observed between MBC and female breast cancer (FBC), particularly for ER-positive FBC.[1] This suggests shared underlying genetic predispositions and pathway dysregulations. A polygenic risk score (PRS) developed for FBC, especially for ER-positive subtypes, is also associated with MBC risk.[1] illustrating a systems-level integration of numerous genetic variants that collectively influence susceptibility. Furthermore, sex-biased gene expression patterns of candidate target genes play a critical role in differentiating MBC from FBC risk. For instance, _CITED4_ and _FGFR2_ have higher expression in female breast tissue, while _KLF4_ and _CCDC170_ show higher expression in male breast tissue.[1] These differential expression profiles, potentially influenced by genotype-tissue interactions and regulatory mechanisms, collectively contribute to the distinct molecular landscape and emergent properties of MBC development.
Epidemiological Patterns and Demographic Correlates
Section titled “Epidemiological Patterns and Demographic Correlates”Male breast carcinoma (MBC) is a rare disease, accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancer diagnoses. Epidemiological studies reveal that MBC tumors are predominantly of the estrogen receptor (ER)-positive subtype, occurring in over 95% of cases, compared to approximately 75% in female breast cancers (FBC).[2]Family history is a significant risk factor, with research indicating that the relative risk of breast cancer for a female with an affected brother is about 30% higher than for a female with an affected sister.[2] Furthermore, approximately 10% of MBC cases are linked to inherited mutations in BRCA2, while mutations in BRCA1 are less frequently observed, suggesting distinct underlying genetic etiologies between MBC and FBC.[2] Population-based family history studies further underscore a greater contribution of genetic variation to MBC predisposition compared to FBC.[2] This highlights the importance of genetic factors in understanding MBC prevalence and incidence patterns. The relatively homogeneous nature of MBC tumors, largely driven by their ER-positive status, may simplify the identification of etiological factors compared to the more heterogeneous FBC.[2]
Large-Scale Genetic Cohorts and Susceptibility Loci
Section titled “Large-Scale Genetic Cohorts and Susceptibility Loci”Large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been instrumental in identifying common germline variants that influence susceptibility to MBC. An initial GWAS, involving 823 cases and 2,795 controls of European ancestry with validation in independent sample sets, identified a novel variant in RAD51B at 14q24.1 (rs1314913 ) and a susceptibility locus at TOX3 (16q12.1, rs3803662 ).[2]These loci, while also associated with FBC susceptibility, conferred greater risks of breast cancer in men than women (e.g., 14q24.1 odds ratio [OR] = 1.57 for MBC vs 1.07 for FBC; 16q12.1 OR = 1.50 for MBC vs 1.22 for FBC).[2] A more comprehensive study pooled individual-level data from previous GWAS with additional case-control datasets, totaling 1380 MBC cases and 3620 controls, primarily of European ancestry.[2]This study aimed to identify novel MBC risk variants and compare genetic predisposition between MBC and FBC. It utilized cases from the Breast Cancer Now Male Breast Cancer Study (UK-BCN-MBCS) in England and Wales, alongside additional UK and US cohorts. Controls were sourced from the 1958 British Birth Cohort (UK-58BC) and other male and female control groups.[2]The study found that the heritability of MBC attributable to common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) was 0.09, which is comparable to estimates for FBC. A strong genetic correlation (rg = 0.83) was observed between MBC and FBC, with an even stronger correlation (rg = 0.82) with ER-positive FBC, aligning with the predominant ER-positive subtype in MBC.[2] Analysis of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) based on 313 SNPs demonstrated that men in the top quintile of genetic risk had an almost fourfold increased risk of MBC compared to those in the bottom quintile.[2]
Cross-Population Comparisons and Methodological Considerations
Section titled “Cross-Population Comparisons and Methodological Considerations”Population studies on MBC have largely focused on cohorts of European ancestry, with participants drawn from various international sites including the UK, US, Finland, Spain, Denmark, Australia, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, and Greece.[2]These multi-center collaborations involve extensive data collection, including blood samples and questionnaire data, coordinated by research nurses, cancer registries, and dedicated study teams. The BCN Male Breast Cancer Study, for instance, is a population-based case-control study specifically designed for MBC in England and Wales.[2] Methodologically, GWAS designs often incorporate both male and female controls, predicated on the understanding that autosomal SNPs do not differ in frequency between sexes sampled from the same ancestral population.[2] This approach enhances the power and generalizability of findings regarding shared genetic susceptibility. However, a limitation in functional analysis for MBC is the scarcity of cell line models derived from male breast tumors, which can hinder the illumination of target genes and pathways underlying genetic risk associations.[2] Further research incorporating diverse ancestral populations and functional studies is needed to fully understand population-specific effects and the complex etiology of MBC.
Frequently Asked Questions About Male Breast Carcinoma
Section titled “Frequently Asked Questions About Male Breast Carcinoma”These questions address the most important and specific aspects of male breast carcinoma based on current genetic research.
1. My dad had breast cancer; does that putme at high risk?
Section titled “1. My dad had breast cancer; does that putme at high risk?”Yes, a strong family history of breast cancer, especially in a father, significantly increases your risk. Genetic susceptibility is a crucial factor for male breast cancer, and inherited mutations, particularly in theBRCA2 gene, are important. Knowing this helps improve risk assessment for men like you.
2. My sister had breast cancer; does that raisemy risk as a man?
Section titled “2. My sister had breast cancer; does that raisemy risk as a man?”Yes, a sister with breast cancer can indicate a shared genetic predisposition that affects you too. Inherited mutations, especially inBRCA2, are linked to both female and male breast cancer risk, accounting for about 10% of male cases. This highlights the importance of understanding your family’s full cancer history for your own risk assessment.
3. Is a DNA test useful for understanding mybreast cancer risk?
Section titled “3. Is a DNA test useful for understanding mybreast cancer risk?”Yes, DNA testing can be very useful for you. Identifying specific genetic variants and predisposition loci can improve your personal risk assessment. Polygenic risk scores, which combine many genetic markers, are also being used to identify men at higher risk, especially for the common ER-positive type.
4. Why don’t men get screened for breast cancer like women do?
Section titled “4. Why don’t men get screened for breast cancer like women do?”Unfortunately, male breast cancer is rare, leading to a general lack of awareness and specific screening protocols for men. This often means that when it is diagnosed, it’s already at a more advanced stage, leading to poorer prognoses. Raising awareness about the unique genetic and biological aspects of male breast cancer is crucial for earlier detection.
5. Will mybreast cancer treatment be tailored differently for me?
Section titled “5. Will mybreast cancer treatment be tailored differently for me?”Yes, treatment approaches are increasingly being tailored specifically for men. Male breast cancer has a distinct biology; over 95% of cases are estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, which is higher than in women. This unique genetic landscape suggests that treatments designed for male breast cancer’s specific characteristics could be more effective for you.
6. I’m not of European background; does my ancestry affect my risk?
Section titled “6. I’m not of European background; does my ancestry affect my risk?”Your ancestry could potentially affect your risk, but current research primarily focuses on individuals of European descent. While this provides valuable insights, it means that genetic factors unique to other ancestral groups, or with different effects, might not yet be fully understood. Future research aims to include more diverse populations to ensure broader relevance.
7. Why do some men get breast cancer, even with no family history?
Section titled “7. Why do some men get breast cancer, even with no family history?”Even without a strong family history, common genetic variations can still increase your risk. Genome-wide association studies have identified many common germline variants, or subtle changes in your DNA, that can influence susceptibility to male breast cancer. These variants, even with small individual effects, contribute to overall risk.
8. If a gene mutation runs in my family, will I definitely get breast cancer?
Section titled “8. If a gene mutation runs in my family, will I definitely get breast cancer?”No, having a gene mutation like BRCA2 means you have an increased susceptibility or higher risk, not a guarantee. These genetic changes influence your likelihood of developing cancer, but other factors also play a role. Understanding your specific genetic risks can help you and your doctors implement targeted screening strategies and personalized care.
9. Could my hormone levels play a role in my breast cancer risk?
Section titled “9. Could my hormone levels play a role in my breast cancer risk?”Yes, your hormone levels could play a role, as male breast cancer is predominantly estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, meaning the cancer cells are often fueled by estrogen. This high ER-positivity, exceeding 95% in men, suggests that hormonal pathways and distinct endogenous factors are significant in the disease’s development.
10. Why are some genetic risks more impactful for men than women?
Section titled “10. Why are some genetic risks more impactful for men than women?”Interestingly, some genetic variations linked to breast cancer can confer a greater risk in men than in women. For instance, specific common variants identified through studies, such as those involving theRAD51Bgene, have been shown to have a stronger contribution to breast cancer predisposition in men. This highlights fundamental sex-specific differences in genetic etiology.
This FAQ was automatically generated based on current genetic research and may be updated as new information becomes available.
Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice. Always consult with a healthcare provider for personalized medical guidance.
References
Section titled “References”[1] Maguire, S., et al. “Common susceptibility loci for male breast cancer.”J Natl Cancer Inst, vol. 112, no. 12, 2020, pp. 1255–1261.
[2] Orr N, et al. “Genome-wide association study identifies a common variant in RAD51B associated with male breast cancer risk.”Nat Genet, 2012.
[3] Basham VM, Lipscombe JM, Ward JM, et al. “BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based study of male breast cancer.”Breast Cancer Res, vol. 4, no. 1, 2001, p. R2.
[4] Orr N, Cooke R, Jones M, et al. “Genetic variants at chromosomes 2q35, 5p12, 6q25.1, 10q26.13, and 16q12.1 influence the risk of breast cancer in men.”PLoS Genet, vol. 7, no. 9, 2011, p. e1002290.
[5] Dunning, A. M., et al. “Breast cancer risk variants at 6q25 display different phenotype associations and regulate ESR1, RMND1 and CCDC170.” Nat Genet., vol. 48, no. 4, 2016, pp. 374–386.
[6] Sornapudi, T. R., et al. “Comprehensive profiling of transcriptional networks specific for lactogenic differentiation of HC11 mammary epithelial stem-like cells.” Sci Rep., vol. 8, no. 1, 2018, p. 11777.
[7] Meyer, K. B., et al. “Fine-scale mapping of the FGFR2 breast cancer risk locus: putative functional variants differentially bind FOXA1 and E2F1.” Am J Hum Genet., vol. 93, no. 6, 2013, pp. 1046–1060.
[8] Gambaro, K., et al. “VGLL3 expression is associated with a tumor suppressor phenotype in epithelial ovarian cancer.” Mol Oncol., vol. 7, no. 3, 2013, pp. 513–530.
[9] Bojesen, S. E., et al. “Multiple independent variants at the TERT locus are associated with telomere length and risks of breast and ovarian cancer.” Nat Genet., vol. 45, no. 4, 2013, pp. 371–384.