ObjectiveTo highlight the salient features of metastatic malignancies involving the penis, with special reference to the primary tumour sites, metastatic mechanisms, clinical features, differential diagnosis, treatment and prognosis.MethodsA comprehensive search of the literature was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE, using the keywords 'penis', 'secondary malignancy', 'metastasis' and 'malignant priapism' to identify reviews and case reports of secondary penile malignancy. A case of rare clinical presentation of metastatic penile lesion is presented along with the review of the literature.ConclusionSecondary malignancy of the penis is a rare clinical entity, despite the rich vascularisation of this organ. The majority of metastatic lesions take their origin from the neighbouring genito-urinary organs, mainly prostate and bladder. These lesions are often associated with disseminated malignancy and hence have a poor outcome. Nodular or ulcerative lesions involving the corpora cavernosa or priapism are the main modes of clinical presentation. In most cases, only palliative or supportive therapy is indicated.

Background:A high percentage of stroma predicts poor survival in triple-negative breast cancers but is diminished in studies of unselected cases. We determined the prognostic significance of tumour–stroma ratio (TSR) in oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive male and female breast carcinomas.Methods:TSR was measured in haematoxylin and eosin-stained tissue sections (118 female and 62 male). Relationship of TSR (cutoff 49%) to overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) was analysed.Results:Tumours with ⩾49% stroma were associated with better survival in female (OS P=0.008, HR=0.2–0.7; RFS P=0.006, HR=0.1–0.6) and male breast cancer (OS P=0.005, HR=0.05–0.6; RFS P=0.01, HR=0.87–5.6), confirmed in multivariate analysis.Conclusions:High stromal content was related to better survival in ER-positive breast cancers across both genders, contrasting data in triple-negative breast cancer and highlighting the importance of considering ER status when interpreting the prognostic value of TSR.

Male breast cancer (MBC) is rare. We assembled 446 MBCs on tissue microarrays and assessed clinicopathological information, together with data from 15 published studies, totalling 1984 cases. By immunohistochemistry we investigated 14 biomarkers (ERα, ERβ1, ERβ2, ERβ5, PR, AR, Bcl-2, HER2, p53, E-cadherin, Ki67, survivin, prolactin, FOXA1) for survival impact. The main histological subtype in our cohort and combined analyses was ductal (81%, 83%), grade 2; (40%, 44%), respectively. Cases were predominantly ERα (84%, 82%) and PR positive (74%, 71%), respectively, with HER2 expression being infrequent (2%, 10%), respectively. In our cohort, advanced age (>67) was the strongest predictor of overall (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) (p = 0.00001; p = 0.01, respectively). Node positivity negatively impacted DFS (p = 0.04). FOXA1 p = 0.005) and AR p = 0.009) were both positively prognostic for DFS, remaining upon multivariate analysis. Network analysis showed ERα, AR and FOXA1 significantly correlated. In summary, the principle phenotype of MBC was luminal A, ductal, grade 2. In ERα+ MBC, only AR had prognostic significance, suggesting AR blockade could be employed therapeutically.

Background:A multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to breast cancer management is the gold standard. The aim is to evaluate MDT decision making in a modern breast unit.Methods:All referrals to the breast MDT where breast cancer was diagnosed from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011 were included. Multidisciplinary team decisions were compared with subsequent patient management and classified as concordant or discordant.Results:Over the study period, there were 3230 MDT decisions relating to 705 patients. Overall, 91.5% (2956 out of 3230) of decisions were concordant, 4.5% (146 out of 3230), were discordant and 4% (128 out of 3230) had no MDT decision. Of 146 discordant decisions, 26 (17.8%) were considered ‘unjustifiable' as there was no additional information available after the MDT to account for the change in management. The remaining 120 discordant MDT decisions were considered ‘justifiable', as management was altered due to patient choice (n=61), additional information available after MDT (n=54) or MDT error (n=5).Conclusion:The vast majority of MDT decisions are implemented. Management alteration was most often due to patient choice or additional information available after the MDT. A minority of management alterations were ‘unjustifiable' and the authors recommend that any patient whose treatment is subsequently changed should have MDT rediscussion prior to treatment.

Purpose: Breast cancer affects both genders, but is understudied in men. Although still rare, male breast cancer (MBC) is being diagnosed more frequently. Treatments are wholly informed by clinical studies conducted in women, based on assumptions that underlying biology is similar.Experimental Design: A transcriptomic investigation of male and female breast cancer was performed, confirming transcriptomic data in silico. Biomarkers were immunohistochemically assessed in 697 MBCs (n ¼ 477, training; n ¼ 220, validation set) and quantified in pre-and posttreatment samples from an MBC patient receiving everolimus and PI3K/mTOR inhibitor.Results: Gender-specific gene expression patterns were identified. eIF transcripts were upregulated in MBC. eIF4E and eIF5 were negatively prognostic for overall survival alone (log-rank P ¼ 0.013; HR ¼ 1.77, 1.12-2.8 and P ¼ 0.035; HR ¼ 1.68, 1.03-2.74, respectively), or when coexpressed (P ¼ 0.01; HR ¼ 2.66, 1.26-5.63), confirmed in the validation set. This remained upon multivariate Cox regression analysis [eIF4E P ¼ 0.016; HR ¼ 2.38 (1.18-4.8), eIF5 P ¼ 0.022; HR ¼ 2.55 (1.14-5.7); coexpression P ¼ 0.001; HR ¼ 7.04 (2.22-22.26)]. Marked reduction in eIF4E and eIF5 expression was seen post BEZ235/everolimus, with extended survival.Conclusions: Translational initiation pathway inhibition could be of clinical utility in MBC patients overexpressing eIF4E and eIF5. With mTOR inhibitors that target this pathway now in the clinic, these biomarkers may represent new targets for therapeutic intervention, although further independent validation is required.

No abstract

No abstract

Breast cancer can occur in either gender; however, it is rare in men, accounting for <1% of diagnosed cases. In a previous transcriptomic screen of male breast cancer (MBC) and female breast cancer (FBC) occurrences, we observed that Stanniocalcin 2 (STC2) was overexpressed in the former. The aim of this study was to confirm the expression of STC2 in MBC and to investigate whether this had an impact on patient prognosis. Following an earlier transcriptomic screen, STC2 gene expression was confirmed by RT‐qPCR in matched MBC and FBC samples as well as in tumour‐associated fibroblasts derived from each gender. Subsequently, STC2 protein expression was examined immunohistochemically in tissue microarrays containing 477 MBC cases. Cumulative survival probabilities were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and multivariate survival analysis was performed using the Cox hazard model. Gender‐specific STC2 gene expression showed a 5.6‐fold upregulation of STC2 transcripts in MBC, also supported by data deposited in Oncomine™. STC2 protein expression was a positive prognostic factor for disease‐free survival (DFS; Log‐rank; total p = 0.035, HR = 0.49; tumour cells p = 0.017, HR = 0.44; stroma p = 0.030, HR = 0.48) but had no significant impact on overall survival (Log‐rank; total p = 0.23, HR = 0.71; tumour cells p = 0.069, HR = 0.59; stroma p = 0.650, HR = 0.87). Importantly, multivariate analysis adjusted for patient age at diagnosis, node staging, tumour size, ER, and PR status revealed that total STC2 expression as well as expression in tumour cells was an independent prognostic factor for DFS (Cox regression; p = 0.018, HR = 0.983; p = 0.015, HR = 0.984, respectively). In conclusion, STC2 expression is abundant in MBC where it is an independent prognostic factor for DFS.