↓ Skip to main content

Use and Effectiveness of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer in Men

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Oncology, October 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
47 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Use and Effectiveness of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer in Men
Published in
JAMA Oncology, October 2018
DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1114
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Although adjuvant endocrine therapy confers a survival benefit among females with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, the effectiveness of this treatment among males with HR-positive breast cancer has not been rigorously investigated. To investigate trends, patterns of use, and effectiveness of adjuvant endocrine therapy among men with HR-positive breast cancer. This retrospective cohort study identified patients in the National Cancer Database with breast cancer who had received treatment from 2004 through 2014. Inclusion criteria for the primary study cohort were males at least 18 years old with nonmetastatic HR-positive invasive breast cancer who underwent surgery with or without adjuvant endocrine therapy. A cohort of female patients was also identified using the same inclusion criteria for comparative analyses by sex. Data analysis was conducted from October 1, 2017, to December 15, 2017. Receipt of adjuvant endocrine therapy. Patterns of adjuvant endocrine therapy use were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Association between adjuvant endocrine therapy use and overall survival was assessed using propensity score-weighted multivariable Cox regression models. The primary study cohort comprised 10 173 men with HR-positive breast cancer (mean [interquartile range] age, 66 [57-75] years). The comparative cohort comprised 961 676 women with HR-positive breast cancer (mean [interquartile range] age, 62 [52-72] years). The median follow-up for the male cohort was 49.6 months (range, 0.1-142.5 months). Men presented more frequently than women with HR-positive disease (94.0% vs 84.3%, P < .001). However, eligible men were less likely than women to receive adjuvant endocrine therapy (67.3% vs 79.0%; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.63; P < .001). Treatment at academic facilities (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25; P = .02) and receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 2.55-3.15; P < .001) or chemotherapy (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07-1.34; P < .001) were statistically significantly associated with adjuvant endocrine therapy use in men. A propensity score-weighted analysis indicated that relative to no use, adjuvant endocrine therapy use in men was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.77; P < .001). There is a sex disparate underuse of adjuvant endocrine therapy among men with HR-positive breast cancer despite the use of this treatment being associated with improved overall survival. Further research and interventions may be warranted to bridge gaps in care in this population.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 55%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Unknown 12 55%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,792,893
of 34,447,360 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Oncology
#2,116
of 3,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,851
of 388,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Oncology
#57
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,447,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,966 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 83.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 388,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.