Next Article in Journal
Postoperative Delirium in Patients with Oral Cancer: Is Intraoperative Fluid Administration a Neglected Risk Factor?
Next Article in Special Issue
Uncovering the Contribution of Moderate-Penetrance Susceptibility Genes to Breast Cancer by Whole-Exome Sequencing and Targeted Enrichment Sequencing of Candidate Genes in Women of European Ancestry
Previous Article in Journal
How Many Private Data Are Needed for Deep Learning in Lung Nodule Detection on CT Scans? A Retrospective Multicenter Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Male Breast Cancer: From Molecular Genetics to Clinical Management
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Analysis of the Clinical Advancements for BRCA-Related Malignancies Highlights the Lack of Treatment Evidence for BRCA-Positive Male Breast Cancer

School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Department of Oncology, Foresterhill Road, Aberdeen AB25 2ZN, UK
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Breast Unit, Foresterhill Road, Aberdeen AB25 2ZN, UK
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Cancers 2022, 14(13), 3175;
Submission received: 20 May 2022 / Revised: 24 June 2022 / Accepted: 24 June 2022 / Published: 28 June 2022



Simple Summary

Male breast cancer (MBC) is an orphan disease that is on the rise but remains understudied. Mutations in genes sensitive to DNA damage response, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are strongly implicated in MBC development. Evidence-based guidance for the treatment of MBC that have BRCA mutations is lacking with most published data arising from retrospective or case studies with small patient cohorts. Here, we review the lack of treatment evidence for BRCA-related MBC. We also highlight the impact of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors which are used in the clinical management of BRCA-related female breast cancer and prostate cancer. In turn, we demonstrate the requirement for national and global collaborative efforts to address the striking unmet need for dedicated BRCA-related MBC research, including studies to better understand disease trajectory and improve clinical outcomes.


Male breast cancer (MBC) is a rare disease that accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers and male malignancies. Despite recognised clinico-pathological and molecular differences to female breast cancer (FBC), the clinical management of MBC follows established FBC treatment strategies. Loss of function mutations in the DNA damage response genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, have been strongly implicated in the pathogenesis of MBC. While there have been extensive clinical advancements in other BRCA-related malignancies, including FBC, improvements in MBC remain stagnant. Here we present a review that highlights the lack of treatment evidence for BRCA-related MBC and the required national and global collaborative effort to address this unmet need. In doing so, we summarise the transformative clinical advancements with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in other BRCA-related cancers namely, FBC and prostate cancer.

1. Introduction

Male breast cancer (MBC) is a rare disease that accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers and male malignancies [1,2,3,4]. Due to difficulties in achieving sufficient patient numbers, few prospective MBC clinical trials have been conducted and most available data arises from female breast cancer (FBC) trials, small retrospective studies, and case reports/series. As a result, MBC patients generally follow previously established FBC clinical management strategies [5,6]. However, with our increasing knowledge of the differing clinical demographics [7], molecular landscapes [8,9,10,11], histological subtypes [12,13], and prognostic factors between male and FBC [11,14,15], maintaining this ‘one size fits all’ approach is no longer tenable.
Epidemiologically, the incidence of MBC increases with age and typically presents at an advanced stage due to a late presentation at diagnosis and poor MBC awareness within the general population [2,16]. The aetiological factors of MBC remain poorly understood, but a contribution of both hormonal and anthropometric factors that lead to abnormal oestrogen exposure, have been implicated [17]. These include obesity, liver disease, testicular abnormalities, exogenous oestrogen, and Klinefelter syndrome [17]. Like FBC, loss of function mutations in the DNA damage response (DDR) genes that are responsible for genomic stability, BRCA1 and BRCA2, have been heavily implicated in the pathogenesis of MBC. Pathogenic BRCA alterations are detected in around 16% of all MBC cases, with 12.5% found in BRCA2 [18]. Several other genes have been reported to confer a moderate risk of MBC at lower prevalence rates including CHEK2 (4–8%), PALB2 (1–2%), and PTEN [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Endeavours to better understand the genetic landscape of MBC have been attempted through genome-wide association and focused gene loci studies. Such studies have identified a number of common polymorphisms that confer MBC risk, including those shared by FBC [27,28,29,30]. Moreover, these susceptibility variants may produce a combinatorial effect on MBC risk in BRCA-mutation carriers through a polygenic inheritance model [31].
BRCA mutations account for 5–10% of all breast cancers and are responsible for 20–25% of all hereditary breast cancers [32,33]. In addition, driver alterations within BRCA provide a substantial risk of developing a number of malignancies other than breast, such as prostate, ovarian, melanoma, and pancreatic [34]. Major efforts have enabled the characterisation of BRCA pathogenic gene aberrations within a number of these cancers, including FBC. This has led to the subclassification of patients with preventative risk stratification implications, specific disease courses, and management pathways that include novel targeted therapeutics. However, MBC lags in BRCA biomarker-led improvements that influence clinical management, highlighting the lack and need of increased translational research within this area.
Targeted approaches of BRCA-mutated neoplasms utilise the homologous recombination repair (HRR) deficiency, and thus the impaired ability to repair double stranded DNA breaks. This confers a greater susceptibility to platinum-based chemotherapy and is the standard treatment for BRCA-positive patients in FBC [35,36]. Beyond BRCA, an additional important DDR pathway involves the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) enzyme-mediated repair of single-stranded DNA breaks [37,38,39]. Inhibition of PARP function in BRCA-related cancers further hinders DNA repair and therefore accelerates tumour cell death. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have shown significant promise in FBC [40] and castrate resistant prostate cancer [41], and gives credence to their potential therapeutic efficacy in BRCA-related MBC.
Despite extensive advancements over the last two decades in the management of FBC patients, and other BRCA-related cancers, evidence-based MBC specific guidance is lacking, especially for those with targetable BRCA mutations. One bottle neck to this area of research has been the exclusion of male participants in breast cancer trials (although this is slowly changing), and a dearth of studies focused specifically on MBC.
Here we present a review of the lack of evidence available for the treatment of BRCA-mutated MBC patients and highlight the substantial gaps in knowledge that are required to better evaluate and understand this unique patient cohort to help inform and improve the current standard of care.

2. The Genetic Landscape of MBC

Knowledge of MBC germline mutations have important clinical implications, including the discovery of novel therapeutic targets and specific biomarkers. An overview of high (BRCA1 and BRCA2), moderate (PALB2, EGFR, CCND1, and EMSY) and low-penetrance (ESR1, TOX3, and FGFR2) germline alterations with clinical translation are summarised below.

2.1. BRCA1 and BRCA2

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are tumour suppressor genes that are strongly associated with the early development of breast cancers in both, men, and women, but with distinct differences. For example, the lifetime risk of breast cancer development in women carrying BRCA1/2 is estimated to be 72 and 69%, respectively [42,43,44]. In addition, a BRCA1-mutation is associated with the more aggressive molecular phenotype of FBC (e.g., triple receptor–negative, oestrogen receptor (ER) negative, progesterone receptor (PR) negative, and HER2 negative), earlier disease onset, and family history of breast cancer [45]. As a result, women with BRCA mutations undergo annual mammographic screening and are recommended to undertake additional adjunct MRI review [46]. Moreover, BRCA-positive women are offered risk reduction strategies including prophylactic mastectomy for FBC, and salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce associated ovarian cancer [46].
In contrast to FBC, BRCA2 mutations confer the greatest risk of MBC development compared to BRCA1 patients and the general population (BRCA2, 8% versus BRCA1, 2% versus wild type (WT), 0.1%) [45,47]. Despite the overall absolute risk being lower than their female counterparts, the risk from baseline is substantially greater in males. BRCA- associated MBC are usually of a higher grade and commonly present with lymph node metastases [48,49,50,51,52]. Moreover, BRCA-associated MBC have been shown to have significantly lower survival rates than BRCA-WT patients [53]. In terms of hormone receptor status and HER2 expression, BRCA1-mutated MBC are typically ER+, PR+, and HER, whilst BRCA2-positive MBC are ER, PR, and HER2+ [50,53,54].

2.2. Moderate to Low Penetrance Germline Mutations

Germline mutations in several genes other than BRCA have been associated with survival and prognostication in MBC. Reduced survival and aggressive prognostic features are linked to mutated PIK3CA and GATA3 and copy number variations in PALB2, EGFR, CCND1 and EMSY [8,10,21,55,56,57,58,59,60]. In general, mutations in DNA repair genes were associated with reduced survival, and enrichment of mutations in these genes were also higher in ER positive/HER2 negative MBCs compared to matched FBCs [8]. Single nucleotide polymorphisms such as rs3803662 in the TOX3 gene and rs2981582 in the FGFR2 gene have also been associated with an increased risk of MBC development, while the presence of the latter also predicted reduced overall survival [27,61,62].

3. Clinical Management of BRCA-Related MBC

In general, all MBC patients, dependent on their staging, undergo the same standard of care as per their female counterpart. This includes a modified radical mastectomy and endocrine therapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens that are offered resemble the treatment strategies of FBC patients. Hormonal therapies available include tamoxifen, which despite a lack of MBC efficacy data, is the adjuvant treatment of choice and is recommended for hormone-receptor positive tumours for a minimum of 5 years [6,63,64]. However, side effects such as weight gain, depression, and impotence have led to high rates of non-compliance and discontinuation in MBC patients [64,65]. In a metastatic setting, aromatase inhibitors are used in tamoxifen resistant cases or in patients who are unsuitable for tamoxifen therapy, however, combination with a gonadotrophin releasing agent, or orchidectomy is required [6,12,66].
In terms of BRCA-targeting therapies, encouragingly, MBC patients were included in the OlympiaAD (NCT02000622) [38] and EMBRACA (NCT01945775) [40] phase III trials, which tested the efficacy of Olaparib and Talozoparib, respectively in BRCA-related breast cancer. These trials demonstrated 3-month Progression Free Survival (PFS) improvement with PARPi compared to physician’s choice single agent chemotherapy in metastatic BRCA-related breast cancer and were subsequently approved as standard therapy in advanced diseased MBC patients. In addition, MBC patients were included in the recent landmark phase III OlympiaA (NCT02032823) [67] trial which demonstrated, for the first-time, improved survival of early breast cancer patients with Olaparib in an adjuvant setting [67]. As a result, the FDA has approved Olaparib while the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is currently evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness within this clinical context [68].

4. BRCA-Related MBC Studies

While specific guidelines concerning the management of MBC patients have recently been published [6], men have traditionally been excluded from breast cancer clinical trials. Although this narrative is slowly changing (e.g., the German MBC trial (NCT01638247) that investigated aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist [69]), significant clinical management gaps still remain.
Regarding BRCA-positive MBC, there are currently no registered ongoing or recruiting clinical trials. This is not surprising as in addition to frequent exclusion from FBC studies, many attempted clinical trials of MBC have closed due to low participant recruitment (e.g., SWOG-S0511 (NCT00217659)). This phase II trial [70], which evaluated the effects of goserelin and anastrozole in men with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, was withdrawn due to poor recruitment [70]. In addition, despite the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) being successful in performing a comprehensive retrospective clinicopathological study of over 1400 MBCs [12], achieving their overarching objective of facilitating MBC clinical trials [5] appears to have been more challenging. Moreover, previous trials that included BRCA-positive MBC patients have focussed predominantly on female patients [71]. Despite inclusion, the number of male patients within these studies has been extremely low (n ≤ 7) making it impossible to perform subgroup analyses [38,40,67]. As a result, most available data for BRCA-positive MBC patients are derived from retrospective studies (Table 1) and case reports (Table 2) [18,48,49,50,52,53,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94].
The majority of BRCA-focused retrospective studies available have provided clinicopathological characterisation of the differing phenotypic features of BRCA- positive MBC compared to FBC, and on the whole have described their aggressive nature, differing hormone positivity (ER/PR), familial risk, and associated poorer prognosis [18,48,49,50,52,53,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94]. This is especially true for BRCA2-positive MBC which has been shown to pose a greater risk of earlier aggressive disease onset (age < 60), with associated hypermethylation patterns (e.g., RASSF1) that may serve as prognostic epigenetic markers [49,76,78,90,93]. To date, the largest of these retrospective studies utilised data on 419 MBCs with BRCA mutations from an international consortium (Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers) and demonstrated that the majority of MBC cases (89.5%) were BRCA2 mutation carriers and of high grade [74]. In addition, a study assessing BRCA-related cancers in males showed promising results using platinum-based therapy in BRCA-related MBC with more than two thirds of patients (n = 7) still alive with no disease recurrence after a median follow up of 5.6 years [18]. Nonetheless, these studies are limited by their retrospective nature and, on the most part, low cohort sizes.
In regard to case reports, a number of BRCA-positive MBC cases have been reported in the literature (n = 13) [73,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,91] (Table 2). The majority of these studies (10 of 13) describe accounts of BRCA2-mutated MBC cases and highlight the significant familial risk and increased lifetime likelihood of developing MBC or prostate cancer in patients with BRCA2 alterations [79,80,82,84,85,86,87,89,91]. For example, a male with prior prostate cancer, who possessed a germline BRCA2 mutation and a significant family history for breast cancer, was subsequently diagnosed with MBC and underwent curative mastectomy [85]. A further case also reported an account of a BRCA2-mutated MBC that received a therapeutic regimen of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil, and additional tamoxifen treatment [86]. The patient then went on to develop a new primary cancer of a different hormonal profile which was treated with modified mastectomy [86]. Other studies of particular note include a BRCA2-positive patient with metachronous breast and primary lung cancer [79]. Despite a good response from the lung malignancy, the breast cancer was refractive to radiation and platinum-based chemotherapy, and anastrozole [79]. Interestingly, this case was successfully treated with the cyclin dependant kinase inhibitor, Palbociclib, and anti-androgen therapy with a response duration of nearly two years [79]. Palbociclib, and inhibitors of the same class, have shown significant improved outcomes in FBC [95,96]; however, these are yet to be explored in MBC.

5. BRCA Mutations in Transgender Patients

Transgender persons harbouring BRCA mutations and receiving hormonal therapy represent a unique group of patients who also require careful clinical management. Despite an increased incidence of breast cancer in this group [97], there remains no established evidence-based guidance. This has been highlighted in a number of cases, for instance, a recent study describes a BRCA1-positive trans female youth receiving hormone therapy to suppress puberty [98]. An additional case involving a transgender woman with a BRCA1-alteration went on to develop breast cancer whilst receiving androgen blocking therapy [99]. The patient was subsequently treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, mastectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy [99]. With several accounts of breast cancer now noted in transgender women who received feminising hormonal therapy [100], a better understanding of the potential risks of treatment is vital.

6. Clinical Trial Led Advancements in Other BRCA-Related Cancers

As described above, large randomised clinical trials have led to several advancements in other BRCA-related malignancies such as FBC and prostate cancer which are summarised below. These have resulted in the introduction of PARPi into clinical practice and offer a less toxic option than conventional chemotherapeutic agents with significant reductions in quality-of-life deterioration [101].

6.1. Female Breast Cancer (FBC)

In FBC, clinical trials investigating PARPi have led to the licencing of both Olaparib and Talozoparib by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine’s Agency (EMA), respectively, for germline BRCA (gBRCA)-positive advanced breast cancer (Table 3) [38,40,102]
As a result of the randomised, open-label, phase III trial, OlympiAD (NCT02000622) [38], Olaparib was the first PARPi to be approved for gBRCA-related advanced FBC [38]. This study evaluated patients who had received two or fewer previous lines of therapy (n = 302) using Olaparib monotherapy versus standard chemotherapy. The results demonstrated superior efficacy and tolerability of Olaparib than standard chemotherapy [38]. PFS was also significantly higher in the Olaparib trial arm in comparison to standard chemotherapy (7.0 vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43–0.80); p < 0.001) (Table 3). In addition, patient objective response rates (ORR) were greater in the PARPi-treated cohort: 59.9 versus 28.8% in those who received chemotherapy [38]. Although further follow up analysis demonstrated no difference in overall survival (OS) between the two treatment groups, it did show that chemotherapy-naive patients who received Olaparib had a longer median OS of 7.9 months, providing a rationale for Olaparib as a future first-line option for gBRCA mutated advanced FBC patients in the future [102]. Irrespective of the very small sample size of male participants within this study (Table 3), Olaparib was subsequently approved for both advanced male and FBC by the FDA and EMA, as discussed in Section 3.
Most recently, results of the landmark OlympiA (NCT02032823) [67] trial demonstrated, for the first-time, improved survival of FBC patients with a PARPi in an adjuvant setting [67]. This study included gBRCA-positive early breast cancer patients (n = 1836) who had completed local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (Table 3). The Olaparib arm of the study was shown to have superior 3-year distant disease-free survival or death than the placebo (HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.39–0.83); p < 0.001) [67] (Table 3). In addition, interim analysis also demonstrated improved 3-year invasive disease–free survival in the therapeutic arm versus the placebo group (HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.41–0.82); p < 0.001) [67] (Table 3). Furthermore, no significant adverse events were noted and all safety data were concordant with known side effects of Olaparib [67]. Pivotally, the results of this study have led to FDA approval of Olaparib as an adjuvant treatment for patients with gBRCA-mutated HER2-negative high-risk early breast cancer who have already been treated with chemotherapy either before or after surgery. However, this has not been adopted by the EMA or NICE yet. In keeping with the OlympiAD (NCT02000622) study, MBC inclusion within OlympiA (NCT02032823) was limited to just two patients in the Olaparib arm [67] and makes drawing any meaningful conclusions challenging.
The phase III EMBRACA (NCT01945775) [40] trial resulted in the approval of the PARPi, Talazoparid, for the use in gBRCA-related, advanced FBC [40]. By comparing the efficacy of Talazoparib (n = 287) with a standard single agent of a clinician’s choice (capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, and gemcitabine) (n = 144), the PARPi demonstrated a greater median PFS (8.6 versus 5.6 months; HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.41–0.71); p < 0.001) (Table 3) and superior ORR (62.2% versus 27.2% (95% CI 2.9–8.8); p < 0.001) [40]. Consequently, Talazoparid was also approved for MBC despite the study’s involving only four MBC patients (Table 3).
PARPi have also been studied for their efficacy in combination with standard chemotherapy agents. For example, in the phase III randomised BROCADE (NCT02163694) [103] clinical study, carboplatin/paclitaxel with or without Celiparib was evaluated as a second line treatment in gBRCA advanced FBC patients [103]. Results showed a greater PFS (14.5 vs. 12.6 months; HR 0.71 (95% CI 0.57–0.88); p = 0.002) (Table 3) in patients treated with Veliparib; however, there was no significant difference in OS between the two trial arms (33.5 versus 28.2 months) [103]. Moreover, the addition of Veliparib to carboplatin and paclitaxel was well tolerated, with low discontinuation rates (<10%) [103].

6.2. Prostate Cancer

BRCA research-led advances have improved therapeutic options for metastatic and castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). For example, within the past year, Olaparib was granted FDA approval for mCRPC patients with germline or somatic deleterious HRR gene mutations, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, who progressed following anti-androgen hormonal therapy. The pivotal phase III randomised trial, PROfound (NCT02987543) [41], involved 387 mCRPC patients who were allocated into two cohorts based on DDR defects (cohort A included BRCA1 and BRCA2 and ATM, while cohort B contained other DDR alterations) [41]. Treatment with Olaparib resulted in a greater median PFS than the anti-androgen control arm (7.4 versus 3.6 months; HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.25–0.47); p < 0.0001) [41] (Table 4). Moreover, the ORR was 33 and 2.3% for experimental and control groups, respectively. In addition, BRCA2-related patients were found to have a greater PFS benefit after receiving Olaparib when compared to other DDR pathogenic variants (e.g., ATM) (Table 4) [41]. Moreover, the PROfound (NCT02987543) [41] study was the first to demonstrate an increase in OS in mCRPC with a PARPi versus physicians choice of second generation-hormonal therapy (19.1 months in cohort A versus 14.7 months in the control arm) (HR 0.69, p = 0.02) (Table 4) [104].
Based on the TRITON2 (NCT02952534) [105] trial, the PARPi, Rucaparib, gained accelerated FDA approval for gBRCA mCRPC patients progressing after prior androgen hormonal therapy and a taxane chemotherapy [105]. Furthermore, ORRs determined per independent radiology review and investigator assessment, were found to be greatest in those harbouring BRCA alterations (43.5% (95% CI 31.0–56.7) and 50.8% (95% CI 38.1–63.4), respectfully) (Table 4) [105]. Full FDA approval will be dependent on the TRITON3 (NCT02975934) [108] phase III randomised control trial which is comparing Rucaparib against physicians’ choice of chemotherapy or second generation hormonal agent in patients who have previously received a hormonal agent but not a taxane drug for mCRPC [108].
Niraparib and Talazoparib PARPi are also being investigated in BRCA-related mCRPC. Interim results of the active phase II GALAHAD (NCT02854436) [106] study demonstrated good ORR (41% (95% CI 23.5–61.1)) and PFS (8.2 months (95% CI 5.2–11.1)) with Niraparib in BRCA-positive mCRPC patients who have progressed on a second-generation hormonal agent and a taxane chemotherapeutic (Table 4) [106]. In regard to Talazoparib, the phase II TALAPRO-1 (NCT03148795) [107] study showed that patients with BRCA-positive mCRPC had superior ORR to the PARPi than other DDR mutations (Table 4) [107]. Both Niraparib and Talazoparib are currently being evaluated in phase III trials for mCRPC.
With promising preclinical support [109,110,111,112], the efficacy of PARPi in prostate cancer is currently being investigated in combination with other agents such as anti-androgens [113,114,115], immunotherapeutics [116], chemotherapy [117], radiotherapy [118], and ATR (ataxia-telangiectasia and Rad3-related) protein inhibitors [119]. Studies involving DDR alterations within their inclusion or primary/secondary outcome measures are outlined in Table 5 and will be described briefly. A total of three trials are currently underway for the evaluation of anti-androgen compounds and PARPi. The phase III PROpel (NCT03732820) [113] trial is exploring Olaparib in combination with abiraterone as first-line therapy in patients with mCRPC [113]. A further phase III study, MAGNITUDE (NCT03748641) [114] is being conducted in both mCRPC patients with and without HRR alterations and the efficacy of niraparib and abiraterone [114]. The benefit of combining Talazoparib and enzalutamide in mCRPC is also being studied in the phase III TALAPRO-2 (NCT03395197) trial [115]. In terms of immunotherapy, one phase I/II study has shown early promise in safety and response profiles when using Durvalumab plus Olaparib in mCRPC (NCT02484404) [116]. Further exploiting the vulnerability of DDR-altered mCRPC to DNA damage, a phase II trial is investigating the impact of the ATRi, Ceralasertib, and Olaparib (NCT03787680) [119]. Other DNA-inhibition strategies that are also being studied include high dose testosterone (NCT03516812) [120]. Ultimately, the amalgamation of PARPi with other anti-cancer compounds could increase the number of DDR-gene mutation positive prostate cancer patients benefiting from PARPi therapy.

7. Future Directions in BRCA-Related MBC

As highlighted in this review, PARPi are driving transformative improvements in the clinical management of BRCA-mutated malignancies. Future directions should aim to evaluate the impact of PARPi, and other targeted approaches, in BRCA-positive MBC. This will require the generation of national MBC registries, global collaboration, and pre-clinical studies.

7.1. National Registry and Combining Efforts

As an orphan disease, efforts to improve the clinical management of MBC, especially those identified as BRCA-positive, will require a global collaborative approach. Impressive efforts by Cardoso et al. [12] have already shown the importance of such collaborations in providing further characterisation of MBC (EORTC International Male Breast Cancer Program). However, BRCA MBC focused investigations remain scarce and therefore, consideration should be made on country-specific national registry studies for BRCA-mutated male patients (e.g., Scottish/Dutch/French/German national registry studies). This will enable synergistic efforts to carefully design and implement clinical trials with large enough cohorts to prevent early termination and generate enough statistical power to accurately characterise BRCA-related MBC, including therapeutic sensitivities. In the long run, this will help improve the clinical management of these patients.

7.2. Translational Research

To bridge the gap in the interim of clinical trial development, in vitro and in vivo approaches in BRCA-related MBC should also be explored. These could include the generation of patient-derived tumour organoid (PDTO) and patient-derived xenograft (PDX) mouse models to better understand BRCA-mutated MBC. Currently, PDTOs do not exist for MBC and are based on FBC organoid derivation, and there are recognised challenges generating organoids from ER-positive disease. In contrast, HER2-positive, and triple negative FBC, have had greater successes [121,122], with the latter phenotype being rarer in MBC [13]. Similar successes have also been achieved with BRCA-positive PDX models of FBC. For example, a BRCA-mutated (L1780P) PDX model demonstrated a partial response to Olaparib [123].
With coordinated efforts, PDTOs, and PDX models, may be derived from MBCs offering the potential to encompass the clinical diversity of each subtype, including those that are BRCA-positive. This will allow further characterisation and exploration of genetic alterations and the identification of corresponding therapeutic sensitivities.

8. Conclusions

There is a growing understanding that male and female BCs are distinct diseases with different clinicopathological and molecular characteristics. Despite extensive advancements in other BRCA-positive malignancies, there remains a striking unmet need for dedicated research for BRCA-related MBC to better understand and optimise clinical management for this subgroup of patients. Such studies are imperative to circumvent the scant information available currently to provide optimal screening and treatment strategies that are tailored for BRCA-positive MBC patients.
Due to the rarity of this cancer, dedicated research can only be successful if carried out on a national basis leading into a worldwide collaborative network with established BRCA-positive registries in combination with tissue collection for translational research. More imminently, exploration of in vitro and in vivo approaches, such as PDTOs and PDX models, may be invaluable in aiding BRCA-positive MBC disease characterisation.

Author Contributions

Study Concepts and Design: D.P.M., V.S. and B.E.; Supervision, V.S. and B.E.; Writing (original draft), D.P.M.; Manuscript Editing, D.P.M., V.S., B.E., G.U., T.M., S.C. and Z.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was funded by The University of Aberdeen Development Trust, Breast Cancer UK and NHS Grampian Breast Cancer Endowment Fund. S.C. is in receipt of an Elphinstone Scholarship.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the writing or interpretation of this work.


  1. SEER Cancer Statistics Review (CSR) 1975–2018. Available online: (accessed on 5 June 2021).
  2. Anderson, W.F.; Jatoi, I.; Tse, J.; Rosenberg, P.S. Male breast cancer: A population-based comparison with female breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Giordano, S.H.; Cohen, D.S.; Buzdar, A.U.; Perkins, G.; Hortobagyi, G.N. Breast carcinoma in men: A population-based study. Cancer 2004, 101, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. White, J.; Kearins, O.; Dodwell, D.; Horgan, K.; Hanby, A.M.; Speirs, V. Male breast carcinoma: Increased awareness needed. Breast Cancer Res. 2011, 13, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Korde, L.A.; Zujewski, J.A.; Kamin, L.; Giordano, S.; Domchek, S.; Anderson, W.F.; Bartlett, J.M.S.; Gelmon, K.; Nahleh, Z.; Bergh, J.; et al. Multidisciplinary meeting on male breast cancer: Summary and research recommendations. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 2114–2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Hassett, M.J.; Somerfield, M.R.; Baker, E.R.; Cardoso, F.; Kansal, K.J.; Kwait, D.C.; Plichta, J.K.; Ricker, C.; Roshal, A.; Ruddy, K.J.; et al. Management of male breast cancer: ASCO guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 1849–1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Greif, J.M.; Pezzi, C.M.; Klimberg, S.V.; Bailey, L.; Zuraek, M. Gender differences in breast cancer: Analysis of 13,000 breast cancers in men from the national cancer data base. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 19, 3199–3204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Piscuoglio, S.; Ng, C.K.Y.; Murray, M.P.; Guerini-Rocco, E.; Martelotto, L.G.; Geyer, F.C.; Bidard, F.C.; Berman, S.; Fusco, N.; Sakr, R.A.; et al. The genomic landscape of male breast cancers. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016, 22, 4045–4056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Callari, M.; Cappelletti, V.; De Cecco, L.; Musella, V.; Miodini, P.; Veneroni, S.; Gariboldi, M.; Pierotti, M.A.; Daidone, M.G. Gene expression analysis reveals a different transcriptomic landscape in female and male breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2011, 127, 601–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Moelans, C.B.; De Ligt, J.; Van Der Groep, P.; Prins, P.; Besselink, N.J.M.; Hoogstraat, M.; ter Hoeve, N.D.; Lacle, M.M.; Kornegoor, R.; Van Der Pol, C.C.; et al. The molecular genetic make-up of male breast cancer. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2019, 26, 779–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Humphries, M.P.; Rajan, S.S.; Droop, A.; Suleman, C.A.B.; Carbone, C.; Nilsson, C.; Honarpisheh, H.; Cserni, G.; Dent, J.; Fulford, L.; et al. A case-matched gender comparison transcriptomic screen identifies eIF4E and eIF5 as potential prognostic markers in male breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 2575–2583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Cardoso, F.; Bartlett, J.M.S.; Slaets, L.; van Deurzen, C.H.M.; van Leeuwen-Stok, E.; Porter, P.; Linderholm, B.; Hedenfalk, I.; Schröder, C.; Martens, J.; et al. Characterization of male breast cancer: Results of the EORTC 10085/TBCRC/BIG/NABCG International Male Breast Cancer Program. Ann. Oncol. 2018, 29, 405–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Humphries, M.P.; Sundara Rajan, S.; Honarpisheh, H.; Cserni, G.; Dent, J.; Fulford, L.; Jordan, L.B.; Jones, J.L.; Kanthan, R.; Litwiniuk, M.; et al. Characterisation of male breast cancer: A descriptive biomarker study from a large patient series. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 45293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Yadav, S.; Karam, D.; Bin Riaz, I.; Xie, H.; Durani, U.; Duma, N.; Giridhar, K.V.; Hieken, T.J.; Boughey, J.C.; Mutter, R.W.; et al. Male breast cancer in the United States: Treatment patterns and prognostic factors in the 21st century. Cancer 2020, 126, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Shaaban, A.M.; Ball, G.R.; Brannan, R.A.; Cserni, G.; Di Benedetto, A.; Dent, J.; Fulford, L.; Honarpisheh, H.; Jordan, L.; Jones, J.L.; et al. A comparative biomarker study of 514 matched cases of male and female breast cancer reveals gender-specific biological differences. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2012, 133, 949–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jylling, A.M.B.; Jensen, V.; Lelkaitis, G.; Christiansen, P.; Nielsen, S.S.; Lautrup, M.D. Male breast cancer: Clinicopathological characterization of a National Danish cohort 1980–2009. Breast Cancer 2020, 27, 683–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Brinton, L.A.; Cook, M.B.; McCormack, V.; Johnson, K.C.; Olsson, H.; Casagrande, J.T.; Cooke, R.; Falk, R.T.; Gapstur, S.M.; Gaudet, M.M.; et al. Anthropometric and hormonal risk factors for male breast cancer: Male breast cancer pooling project results. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2014, 106, djt465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Ibrahim, M.; Yadav, S.; Ogunleye, F.; Zakalik, D. Male BRCA mutation carriers: Clinical characteristics and cancer spectrum. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Liang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, C.; Rizeq, F.K.; Min, M.; Shi, T.; Sun, Y. Association Between CHEK2*1100delC and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Mol. Diagnosis. Ther. 2018, 22, 397–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Meijers-Heijboer, H.; Van den Ouweland, A.; Klijn, J.; Wasielewski, M.; De Shoo, A.; Oldenburg, R.; Hollestelle, A.; Houben, M.; Crepin, E.; Van Veghel-Plandsoen, M.; et al. Low-penetrance susceptibility to breast cancer due to CHEK2*1100delC in noncarriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: The CHEK2-breast cancer consortium. Nat. Genet. 2002, 31, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rizzolo, P.; Zelli, V.; Silvestri, V.; Valentini, V.; Zanna, I.; Bianchi, S.; Masala, G.; Spinelli, A.M.; Tibiletti, M.G.; Russo, A.; et al. Insight into genetic susceptibility to male breast cancer by multigene panel testing: Results from a multicenter study in Italy. Int. J. Cancer 2019, 145, 390–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fackenthal, J.D.; Marsh, D.J.; Richardson, A.L.; Cummings, S.A.; Eng, C.; Robinson, B.G.; Olopade, O.I. Male breast cancer in Cowden syndrome patients with germline PTEN mutations. J. Med. Genet. 2001, 38, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Rahman, N.; Seal, S.; Thompson, D.; Kelly, P.; Renwick, A.; Elliott, A.; Reid, S.; Spanova, K.; Barfoot, R.; Chagtai, T.; et al. PALB2, which encodes a BRCA2-interacting protein, is a breast cancer susceptibility gene. Nat. Genet. 2007, 39, 165–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Erkko, H.; Xia, B.; Nikkilä, J.; Schleutker, J.; Syrjäkoski, K.; Mannermaa, A.; Kallioniemi, A.; Pylkäs, K.; Karppinen, S.M.; Rapakko, K.; et al. A recurrent mutation in PALB2 in Finnish cancer families. Nature 2007, 446, 316–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Casadei, S.; Norquist, B.M.; Walsh, T.; Stray, S.; Mandell, J.B.; Lee, M.K.; Stamatoyannopoulos, J.A.; King, M.C. Contribution of inherited mutations in the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 to familial breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2011, 71, 2222–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Pritzlaff, M.; Summerour, P.; McFarland, R.; Li, S.; Reineke, P.; Dolinsky, J.S.; Goldgar, D.E.; Shimelis, H.; Couch, F.J.; Chao, E.C.; et al. Male breast cancer in a multi-gene panel testing cohort: Insights and unexpected results. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2017, 161, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Orr, N.; Cooke, R.; Jones, M.; Fletcher, O.; Dudbridge, F.; Chilcott-Burns, S.; Tomczyk, K.; Broderick, P.; Houlston, R.; Ashworth, A.; 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. 2011, 7, 1002290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Orr, N.; Lemnrau, A.; Cooke, R.; Fletcher, O.; Tomczyk, K.; Jones, M.; Johnson, N.; Lord, C.J.; Mitsopoulos, C.; Zvelebil, M.; et al. Genome-wide association study identifies a common variant in RAD51B associated with male breast cancer risk. Nat. Genet. 2012, 44, 1182–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Silvestri, V.; Rizzolo, P.; Scarnò, M.; Chillemi, G.; Navazio, A.S.; Valentini, V.; Zelli, V.; Zanna, I.; Saieva, C.; Masala, G.; et al. Novel and known genetic variants for male breast cancer risk at 8q24.21, 9p21.3, 11q13.3 and 14q24.1: Results from a multicenter study in Italy. Eur. J. Cancer 2015, 51, 2289–2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maguire, S.; Perraki, E.; Tomczyk, K.; Jones, M.E.; Fletcher, O.; Pugh, M.; Winter, T.; Thompson, K.; Cooke, R.; Trainer, A.; et al. Common Susceptibility Loci for Male Breast Cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2021, 113, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lecarpentier, J.; Kuchenbaecker, K.B.; Barrowdale, D.; Dennis, J.; McGuffog, L.; Leslie, G.; Lee, A.; Al Olama, A.A.; Tyrer, J.P.; Frost, D.; et al. Prediction of breast and prostate cancer risks in male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers using polygenic risk scores. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 2240–2250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Campeau, P.M.; Foulkes, W.D.; Tischkowitz, M.D. Hereditary breast cancer: New genetic developments, new therapeutic avenues. Hum. Genet. 2008, 124, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Easton, D.F. How many more breast cancer predisposition genes are there? Breast Cancer Res. 1999, 1, 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Mersch, J.; Jackson, M.A.; Park, M.; Nebgen, D.; Peterson, S.K.; Singletary, C.; Arun, B.K.; Litton, J.K. Cancers associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations other than breast and ovarian. Cancer 2015, 121, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Byrski, T.; Gronwald, J.; Huzarski, T.; Grzybowska, E.; Budryk, M.; Stawicka, M.; Mierzwa, T.; Szwiec, M.; Wiśniowski, R.; Siolek, M.; et al. Pathologic complete response rates in young women with BRCA1-positive breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 375–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Von Minckwitz, G.; Schneeweiss, A.; Loibl, S.; Salat, C.; Denkert, C.; Rezai, M.; Blohmer, J.U.; Jackisch, C.; Paepke, S.; Gerber, B.; et al. Neoadjuvant carboplatin in patients with triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer (GeparSixto; GBG 66): A randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 747–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Roy, R.; Chun, J.; Powell, S.N. BRCA1 and BRCA2: Different roles in a common pathway of genome protection. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2012, 12, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Robson, M.; Im, S.-A.; Senkus, E.; Xu, B.; Domchek, S.M.; Masuda, N.; Delaloge, S.; Li, W.; Tung, N.; Armstrong, A.; et al. Olaparib for Metastatic Breast Cancer in Patients with a Germline BRCA Mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 523–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Farmer, H.; McCabe, H.; Lord, C.J.; Tutt, A.H.J.; Johnson, D.A.; Richardson, T.B.; Santarosa, M.; Dillon, K.J.; Hickson, I.; Knights, C.; et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 2005, 434, 917–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Litton, J.K.; Rugo, H.S.; Ettl, J.; Hurvitz, S.A.; Gonçalves, A.; Lee, K.-H.; Fehrenbacher, L.; Yerushalmi, R.; Mina, L.A.; Martin, M.; et al. Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA Mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 753–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. de Bono, J.; Mateo, J.; Fizazi, K.; Saad, F.; Shore, N.; Sandhu, S.; Chi, K.N.; Sartor, O.; Agarwal, N.; Olmos, D.; et al. Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 2091–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Kuchenbaecker, K.B.; Hopper, J.L.; Barnes, D.R.; Phillips, K.A.; Mooij, T.M.; Roos-Blom, M.J.; Jervis, S.; Van Leeuwen, F.E.; Milne, R.L.; Andrieu, N.; et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA 2017, 317, 2402–2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Chen, S.; Parmigiani, G. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 1329–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Ford, D.; Easton, D.F.; Bishop, D.T.; Narod, S.A.; Goldgar, D.E. Risks of cancer in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Lancet 1994, 343, 692–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tun, N.M.; Villani, G.; Ong, K.; Yoe, L.; Bo, Z.M. Risk of having BRCA1 mutation in high-risk women with triple-negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Clin. Genet. 2014, 85, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. NICE. Familial Breast Cancer: Classification, Care and Managing Breast Cancer and Related Risks in People with a Family History of Breast Cancer; NICE: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  47. Evans, D.G.R.; Susnerwala, I.; Dawson, J.; Woodward, E.; Maher, E.R.; Lalloo, F. Risk of breast cancer in male BRCA2 carriers. J. Med. Genet. 2010, 47, 710–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Ottini, L.; Masala, G.; D’Amico, C.; Mancini, B.; Saieva, C.; Aceto, G.; Gestri, D.; Vezzosi, V.; Falchetti, M.; De Marco, M.; et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status and tumor characteristics in male breast cancer: A population-based study in Italy. Cancer Res. 2003, 63, 342–347. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ottini, L.; Rizzolo, P.; Zanna, I.; Falchetti, M.; Masala, G.; Ceccarelli, K.; Vezzosi, V.; Gulino, A.; Giannini, G.; Bianchi, S.; et al. BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation status and clinical-pathologic features of 108 male breast cancer cases from Tuscany: A population-based study in central Italy. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2009, 116, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ottini, L.; Silvestri, V.; Rizzolo, P.; Falchetti, M.; Zanna, I.; Saieva, C.; Masala, G.; Bianchi, S.; Manoukian, S.; Barile, M.; et al. Clinical and pathologic characteristics of BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative male breast cancer patients: Results from a collaborative multicenter study in Italy. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2012, 134, 411–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sun, X.; Gong, Y.; Rao, M.S.; Badve, S. Loss of BRCA1 expression in sporadic male breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2002, 71, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. André, S.; Pereira, T.; Silva, F.; Machado, P.; Vaz, F.; Aparício, M.; Silva, G.L.; Pinto, A.E. Male breast cancer: Specific biological characteristics and survival in a Portuguese cohort. Mol. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 10, 644–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Gargiulo, P.; Pensabene, M.; Milano, M.; Arpino, G.; Giuliano, M.; Forestieri, V.; Condello, C.; Lauria, R.; De Placido, S. Long-term survival and BRCA status in male breast cancer: A retrospective single-center analysis. BMC Cancer 2016, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Deb, S.; Jene, N.; Investigators, K.C.F.; Fox, S.B. Genotypic and phenotypic analysis of familial male breast cancer shows under representation of the HER2 and basal subtypes in BRCA-associated carcinomas. BMC Cancer 2012, 12, 510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Kornegoor, R.; Moelans, C.B.; Verschuur-Maes, A.H.J.; Hogenes, M.C.H.; De Bruin, P.C.; Oudejans, J.J.; Marchionni, L.; Van Diest, P.J. Oncogene amplification in male breast cancer: Analysis by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2012, 135, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Szwiec, M.; Tomiczek-Szwiec, J.; Kluźniak, W.; Wokołorczyk, D.; Osowiecka, K.; Sibilski, R.; Wachowiak, M.; Gronwald, J.; Gronwald, H.; Lubiński, J.; et al. Genetic predisposition to male breast cancer in Poland. BMC Cancer 2021, 21, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Bärlund, M.; Kuukasjärvi, T.; Syrjäkoski, K.; Auvinen, A.; Kallioniemi, A. Frequent amplification and overexpression of CCND1 in male breast cancer. Int J. Cancer 2004, 111, 968–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rizzolo, P.; Navazio, A.S.; Silvestri, V.; Valentini, V.; Zelli, V.; Zanna, I.; Masala, G.; Bianchi, S.; Scarnò, M.; Tommasi, S.; et al. Somatic alterations of targetable oncogenes are frequently observed in BRCA1/2 mutation negative male breast cancers. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 74097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Vermeulen, M.A.; Doebar, S.C.; Van Deurzen, C.H.M.; Martens, J.W.M.; Van Diest, P.J.; Moelans, C.B. Copy number profiling of oncogenes in ductal carcinoma in situ of the male breast. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2018, 25, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lacle, M.M.; Kornegoor, R.; Moelans, C.B.; Maes-Verschuur, A.H.; Van Der Pol, C.; Witkamp, A.J.; Van Der Wall, E.; Rueschoff, J.; Buerger, H.; Van Diest, P.J. Analysis of copy number changes on chromosome 16q in male breast cancer by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Mod. Pathol. 2013, 26, 1461–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Zanna, I.; Silvestri, V.; Palli, D.; Magrini, A.; Rizzolo, P.; Saieva, C.; Zelli, V.; Bendinelli, B.; Vezzosi, V.; Valentini, V.; et al. Smoking and FGFR2 rs2981582 variant independently modulate male breast cancer survival: A population-based study in Tuscany, Italy. Breast 2018, 40, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ottini, L.; Silvestri, V.; Saieva, C.; Rizzolo, P.; Zanna, I.; Falchetti, M.; Masala, G.; Navazio, A.S.; Graziano, V.; Bianchi, S.; et al. Association of low-penetrance alleles with male breast cancer risk and clinicopathological characteristics: Results from a multicenter study in Italy. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2013, 138, 861–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Giordano, S.H.; Perkins, G.H.; Broglio, K.; Garcia, S.G.; Middleton, L.P.; Buzdar, A.U.; Hortobagyi, G.N. Adjuvant Systemic therapy for male breast carcinoma. Cancer 2005, 104, 2359–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Bradley, K.L.; Tyldesley, S.; Speers, C.H.; Woods, R.; Villa, D. Contemporary systemic therapy for male breast cancer. Clin. Breast Cancer 2014, 14, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Khan, M.H.; Allerton, R.; Pettit, L. Hormone therapy for breast cancer in men. Clin. Breast Cancer 2015, 15, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Cardoso, F.; Costa, A.; Senkus, E.; Aapro, M.; André, F.; Barrios, C.H.; Bergh, J.; Bhattacharyya, G.; Biganzoli, L.; Cardoso, M.J.; et al. 3rd ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 3). Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, 16–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Tutt, A.N.J.; Garber, J.E.; Kaufman, B.; Viale, G.; Fumagalli, D.; Rastogi, P.; Gelber, R.D.; de Azambuja, E.; Fielding, A.; Balmaña, J.; et al. Adjuvant Olaparib for Patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2- Mutated Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 2394–2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. NICE. Olaparib for Adjuvant Treatment of High-Risk HER2-Negative, BRCA-Positive Early Breast Cancer after Chemotherapy [ID3893]. 2022. Available online: (accessed on 18 May 2022).
  69. Reinisch, M.; Seiler, S.; Hauzenberger, T.; Kamischke, A.; Schmatloch, S.; Strittmatter, H.J.; Zahm, D.M.; Thode, C.; Furlanetto, J.; Strik, D.; et al. Efficacy of Endocrine Therapy for the Treatment of Breast Cancer in Men: Results from the MALE Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021, 7, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. S0511, Goserelin and Anastrozole in Treating Men with Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer. Available online: (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  71. Han, H.S.; Diéras, V.; Robson, M.; Palácová, M.; Marcom, P.K.; Jager, A.; Bondarenko, I.; Citrin, D.; Campone, M.; Telli, M.L.; et al. Veliparib with temozolomide or carboplatin/paclitaxel versus placebo with carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with BRCA1/2 locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer: Randomized phase II study. Ann. Oncol. 2018, 29, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Vietri, M.T.; Caliendo, G.; D’Elia, G.; Resse, M.; Casamassimi, A.; Minucci, P.B.; Cioffi, M.; Molinari, A.M. BRCA and PALB2 mutations in a cohort of male breast cancer with one bilateral case. Eur. J. Med. Genet. 2020, 63, 103883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Benjamin, M.A.; Riker, A.I. A case of male breast cancer with a BRCA gene mutation. Ochsner. J. 2015, 15, 448–451. [Google Scholar]
  74. Silvestri, V.; Barrowdale, D.; Mulligan, A.M.; Neuhausen, S.L.; Fox, S.; Karlan, B.Y.; Mitchell, G.; James, P.; Thull, D.L.; Zorn, K.K.; et al. Male breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: Pathology data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2. Breast Cancer Res. 2016, 18, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Basham, V.M.; Lipscombe, J.M.; Ward, J.M.; Gayther, S.A.; Ponder, B.A.; Easton, D.F.; Pharoah, P.D. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based study of male breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2002, 4, R2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Kwiatkowska, E.; Teresiak, M.; Filas, V.; Karczewska, A.; Breborowicz, D.; Mackiewicz, A. Mutations and Androgen Receptor Expression as Independent Predictors of Outcome of Male Breast Cancer Patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 2003, 9, 4452–4459. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  77. Rizzolo, P.; Silvestri, V.; Valentini, V.; Zelli, V.; Zanna, I.; Masala, G.; Bianchi, S.; Palli, D.; Ottini, L. Gene-specific methylation profiles in BRCA-mutation positive and BRCA-mutation negative male breast cancers. Oncotarget 2018, 9, 19783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Ding, Y.C.; Steele, L.; Kuan, C.J.; Greilac, S.; Neuhausen, S.L. Mutations in BRCA2 and PALB2 in male breast cancer cases from the United States. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2011, 126, 771–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Cheng, Y.; Li, N.; Eapen, A.; Parajuli, R.; Mehta, R. Somatic BRCA2 Mutation-Positive Concurrent Accessory Male Breast Cancer (BC) and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Excellent Efficacy of Palbociclib, Fulvestrant and Leuprolide in Platinum-Exposed and Endocrine-Refractory BC Associated with Cyclin D1 an. Case Rep. Oncol. 2019, 12, 494–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Singer, C.F.; Rappaport-Fuerhauser, C.; Sopik, V.; Narod, S.A. Prostate cancer in a man with a BRCA2 mutation and a personal history of bilateral breast cancer. Clin. Genet. 2015, 88, 187–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Saha, D.; Tannenbaum, S.; Zhu, Q. Treatment of Male Breast Cancer by Dual Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Blockade and Response Prediction Using Novel Optical Tomography Imaging: A Case Report. Cureus 2017, 9, e1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Guaoua, S.; Ratbi, I.; Lyahyai, J.; El Alaoui, S.C.; Laarabi, F.-Z.; Sefiani, A. Novel nonsense mutation of BRCA2 gene in a Moroccan man with familial breast cancer. Afr. Health Sci. 2014, 14, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Karamanakos, P.; Mitsiades, C.S.; Lembessis, P.; Kontos, M.; Trafalis, D.; Koutsilieris, M. Male Breast Adenocarcinoma in a Prostate Cancer Patient Following Prolonged Anti-androgen Monotherapy. Anticancer Res. 2004, 24, 1077–1081. [Google Scholar]
  84. Savelyeva, L.; Claas, A.; Gier, S.; Schlag, P.; Finke, L.; Mangion, J.; Stratton, M.R.; Schwab, M. An interstitial tandem duplication of 9p23-24 coexists with a mutation in the BRCA2 gene in the germ line of three brothers with breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1998, 58, 863–866. [Google Scholar]
  85. Panchal, S.; Shachar, O.; O’Malley, F.; Crystal, P.; Escallon, J.; Crook, J.; Bane, A.; Bordeleau, L. Breast cancer in a BRCA2 mutation carrier with a history of prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 6, 604–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Brenner, R.J.; Weitzel, J.N.; Hansen, N.; Boasberg, P. Screening-detected Breast Cancer in a Man with BRCA2 Mutation: Case Report. Radiology 2004, 230, 553–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Scheidbach, H.; Dworak, O.; Schmucker, B.; Hohenberger, W. Lobular carcinoma of the breast in an 85-year-old man. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2000, 26, 319–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Azzouzi, A.R.; Stoppa-Lyonnet, D.; Roupret, M.; Larre, S.; Mangin, P.; Cussenot, O. BRCA2 mutation screening is clinically relevant in breast and early prostate cancer families. Int. J. Urol. 2007, 14, 445–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kwiatkowska, E.; Brozek, I.; Izycka-Swieszewska, E.; Limon, J.; Mackiewicz, A. Novel BRCA2 mutation in a Polish family with hamartoma and two male breast cancers. J. Med. Genet. 2002, 39, E35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Deb, S.; Gorringe, K.L.; Pang, J.-M.B.; Byrne, D.J.; Takano, E.A.; Investigators, K.; Dobrovic, A.; Fox, S.B. BRCA2 carriers with male breast cancer show elevated tumour methylation. BMC Cancer 2017, 17, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Huszno, J.; Fiszer-Kierzkowska, A.; Pigłowski, W.; Mazur, M. BRCA2 gene mutation, c.2808_2811delACAA (p.Ala938Profs), in male breast cancer—Clinicopathological analysis based on a case report. Prz Menopauzalny 2019, 8, 227–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. de Juan, I.; Palanca, S.; Domenech, A.; Feliubadaló, L.; Segura, Á.; Osorio, A.; Chirivella, I.; de la Hoya, M.; Sánchez, A.B.; Infante, M.; et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in males with familial breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Results of a Spanish multicenter study. Fam Cancer 2015, 14, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Palli, D.; Falchetti, M.; Masala, G.; Lupi, R.; Sera, F.; Saieva, C.; D’Amico, C.; Ceroti, M.; Rizzolo, P.; Caligo, M.A.; et al. Association between the BRCA2 N372H variant and male breast cancer risk: A population-based case-control study in Tuscany, Central Italy. BMC Cancer 2007, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Tirkkonen, M.; Kainu, T.; Loman, N.; Jóhannsson, Ó.T.; Olsson, H.; Barkardóttir, R.B.; Kallioniemi, O.P.; Borg, Å. Somatic genetic alterations in BRCA2-associated and sporadic male breast cancer. Genes Chromosom Cancer 1999, 24, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Turner, N.C.; Ro, J.; André, F.; Loi, S.; Verma, S.; Iwata, H.; Harbeck, N.; Loibl, S.; Huang Bartlett, C.; Zhang, K.; et al. Palbociclib in Hormone-Receptor–Positive Advanced Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Slamon, D.J.; Neven, P.; Chia, S.; Fasching, P.A.; De Laurentiis, M.; Im, S.A.; Petrakova, K.; Val Bianchi, G.; Esteva, F.J.; Martín, M.; et al. Phase III randomized study of ribociclib and fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer: MONALEESA-3. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 2465–2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. De Blok, C.J.M.; Wiepjes, C.M.; Nota, N.M.; Van Engelen, K.; Adank, M.A.; Dreijerink, K.M.A.; Barbé, E.; Konings, I.R.H.M.; Den Heijer, M. Breast cancer risk in transgender people receiving hormone treatment: Nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands. BMJ 2019, 365, l1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Wolf-Gould, C.S.; Riley, M.R.; Carswell, J.M. Complex medical decision-making for a trans-feminine youth with a BRCA1 mutation. LGBT Health 2018, 5, 221–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Colebunders, B.; T’Sjoen, G.; Weyers, S.; Monstrey, S. Hormonal and surgical treatment in trans-women with BRCA1 mutations: A controversial topic. J. Sex. Med. 2014, 11, 2496–2499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Eismann, J.; Heng, Y.J.; Fleischmann-Rose, K.; Tobias, A.M.; Phillips, J.; Wulf, G.M.; Kansal, K.J. Interdisciplinary Management of Transgender Individuals at Risk for Breast Cancer: Case Reports and Review of the Literature. Clin. Breast Cancer 2019, 19, e12–e19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Poggio, F.; Bruzzone, M.; Ceppi, M.; Conte, B.; Martel, S.; Maurer, C.; Tagliamento, M.; Viglietti, G.; Del Mastro, L.; De Azambuja, E.; et al. Single-agent PARP inhibitors for the treatment of patients with BRCA -mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. ESMO Open 2018, 3, e000361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Robson, M.E.; Tung, N.; Conte, P.; Im, S.A.; Senkus, E.; Xu, B.; Masuda, N.; Delaloge, S.; Li, W.; Armstrong, A.; et al. OlympiAD final overall survival and tolerability results: Olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30, 558–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Diéras, V.; Han, H.S.; Kaufman, B.; Wildiers, H.; Friedlander, M.; Ayoub, J.P.; Puhalla, S.L.; Bondarenko, I.; Campone, M.; Jakobsen, E.H.; et al. Veliparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (BROCADE3): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 1269–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hussain, M.; Mateo, J.; Fizazi, K.; Saad, F.; Shore, N.; Sandhu, S.; Chi, K.N.; Sartor, O.; Agarwal, N.; Olmos, D.; et al. Survival with Olaparib in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 2345–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Abida, W.; Patnaik, A.; Campbell, D.; Shapiro, J.; Bryce, A.H.; McDermott, R.; Sautois, B.; Vogelzang, N.J.; Bambury, R.M.; Voog, E.; et al. Rucaparib in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Harboring a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Gene Alteration. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 3763–3772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Smith, M.R.; Sandhu, S.K.; Kelly, W.K.; Scher, H.I.; Efstathiou, E.; Lara, P.; Yu, E.Y.; George, D.J.; Chi, K.N.; Summa, J.; et al. Phase II study of niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and biallelic DNA-repair gene defects (DRD): Preliminary results of GALAHAD. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. De Bono, J.S.; Mehra, N.; Higano, C.S.; Saad, F.; Buttigliero, C.; van Oort, I.M.; Mata, M.; Chen, H.-C.; Healy, C.G.; Czibere, A.; et al. TALAPRO-1: Phase II study of talazoparib (TALA) in patients (pts) with DNA damage repair alterations (DDRm) and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. A Study of Rucaparib versus Physician’s Choice of Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Homologous Recombination Gene Deficiency. Available online: (accessed on 6 June 2021).
  109. Asim, M.; Tarish, F.; Zecchini, H.I.; Sanjiv, K.; Gelali, E.; Massie, C.E.; Baridi, A.; Warren, A.Y.; Zhao, W.; Ogris, C.; et al. Synthetic lethality between androgen receptor signalling and the PARP pathway in prostate cancer. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Li, L.; Karanika, S.; Yang, G.; Wang, J.; Park, S.; Broom, B.M.; Manyam, G.C.; Wu, W.; Luo, Y.; Basourakos, S.; et al. Androgen receptor inhibitor-induced “BRCAness” and PARP inhibition are synthetically lethal for castration-resistant prostate cancer. Sci. Signal. 2017, 10, eaam7479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Shen, J.; Zhao, W.; Ju, Z.; Wang, L.; Peng, Y.; Labrie, M.; Yap, T.A.; Mills, G.B.; Peng, G. PARPI triggers the STING-dependent immune response and enhances the therapeutic efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade independent of BRCANEss. Cancer Res. 2019, 79, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Lloyd, R.L.; Wijnhoven, P.W.G.; Ramos-Montoya, A.; Wilson, Z.; Illuzzi, G.; Falenta, K.; Jones, G.N.; James, N.; Chabbert, C.D.; Stott, J.; et al. Combined PARP and ATR inhibition potentiates genome instability and cell death in ATM-deficient cancer cells. Oncogene 2020, 39, 4869–4883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Study on Olaparib plus Abiraterone as First-Line Therapy in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Available online: (accessed on 27 June 2021).
  114. A Study of Niraparib in Combination with Abiraterone Acetate and Prednisone versus Abiraterone Acetate and Prednisone for Treatment of Participants with Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Available online: (accessed on 27 June 2021).
  115. Talazoparib + Enzalutamide vs. Enzalutamide Monotherapy in mCRPC. Available online: (accessed on 27 June 2021).
  116. Zimmer, A.S.; Nichols, E.; Cimino-Mathews, A.; Peer, C.; Cao, L.; Lee, M.J.; Kohn, E.C.; Annunziata, C.M.; Lipkowitz, S.; Trepel, J.B.; et al. A phase i study of the PD-L1 inhibitor, durvalumab, in combination with a PARP inhibitor, olaparib, and a VEGFR1-3 inhibitor, cediranib, in recurrent women’s cancers with biomarker analyses. J. Immunother Cancer 2019, 7, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Study of Olaparib Maintenance Following Cabazitaxel-Carbo in Men with AVPC. Available online: (accessed on 27 June 2021).
  118. Olaparib and Radium Ra 223 Dichloride in Treating Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer that Has Spread to the Bone. Available online: (accessed on 27 June 2021).
  119. Targeting Resistant Prostate Cancer with ATR and PARP Inhibition (TRAP Trial). Available online: (accessed on 27 June 2021).
  120. Testosterone and Olaparib in Treating Patients with Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Available online: (accessed on 27 June 2021).
  121. Mazzucchelli, S.; Piccotti, F.; Allevi, R.; Truffi, M.; Sorrentino, L.; Russo, L.; Agozzino, M.; Signati, L.; Bonizzi, A.; Villani, L.; et al. Establishment and Morphological Characterization of Patient-Derived Organoids from Breast Cancer. Biol. Proced Online 2019, 21, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Sachs, N.; de Ligt, J.; Kopper, O.; Gogola, E.; Bounova, G.; Weeber, F.; Balgobind, A.V.; Wind, K.; Gracanin, A.; Begthel, H.; et al. A Living Biobank of Breast Cancer Organoids Captures Disease Heterogeneity. Cell 2018, 172, 373–386.e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Park, H.S.; Lee, J.D.; Kim, J.Y.; Park, S.; Kim, J.H.; Han, H.J.; Choi, Y.A.; Choi, A.R.; Sohn, J.H.; Kim, S. Il Establishment of chemosensitivity tests in triple-negative and BRCA-mutated breast cancer patient-derived xenograft models. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e00225082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Summary of retrospective studies involving BRCA-positive MBC patients.
Table 1. Summary of retrospective studies involving BRCA-positive MBC patients.
Author (Year)Study PopulationNo. of PatientsStudy Objective
Tirkkonen et al. (1999) [94]MBC patients25Somatic genetic alterations in BRCA2-associated and sporadic MBC
Basham et al. (2002) [75]MBC patients94BRCA1/2-mutation status and risk of breast cancer in female relatives
Ottini et al. (2003) [48]MBC patients25The Characterisation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 MBC
Kwiatkowska et al. (2003) [76]MBC patients43Investigation of the prognostic value of BRCA2 status in MBC
Palli et al. (2007) [93]MBC patients99The association between the BRCA2 N732H variant and MBC risk
Ottini et al. (2009) [49]MBC patients108Characterisation the clinic-pathological features of BRCA1/2- positive MBC
Ding et al. (2011) [78]MBC patients115To determine the frequency of pathogenic mutations in BRCA2 and PALB2 in MBC cases and to investigate the correlations between mutation status and cancer phenotype
Ottini et al. (2012) [50]MBC patients382Investigation of the clinical–pathologic features of MBC in association with BRCA mutations
de Juan et al. (2015) [92]MBC patients 312BRCA1/2 mutations in males with familial breast and ovarian cancer syndrome
Gargiulo et al. (2016) [53]MBC patients47Characterisation of MBC, including BRCA1/2-mutated patients, and the impact on long-term survival
Silvestri et al. (2016) [74]MBC patients366 *To determine if BRCA1/2 mutation carriers display specific pathologic features and if these differ from FBCs
Deb et al. (2017) [90]MBC patients60Investigation of a panel of commonly methylated breast cancer genes in familial MBCs
Rizzolo et al. (2018) [77]MBC patients69Gene-specific methylation profiles in BRCA-mutation positive and negative MBC
Ibrahim et al. (2018) [18]MBC patients102Evaluation of clinical characteristics, pathology findings, treatment selection and survival in BRCA-positive males
André et al. (2019) [52]MBC patients196Specific biological characteristics and survival in MBC
Vietri et al. (2020) [72]MBC patients28Characterisation of BRCA1/BRCA2 and PALB2 mutations in MBC patients
* Original cohort of 419 was restricted to invasive male breast cancer (n = 366). MBC = male breast cancer.
Table 2. Summary of case studies involving BRCA-positive MBC patients.
Table 2. Summary of case studies involving BRCA-positive MBC patients.
Author (Year)Study PopulationNo. of PatientsStudy Objective
Savelyeva et al. (1998) [84]BRCA2-mutated MBC3Case report describing three brothers with BRCA2 mutation, two of which developed infiltrating ductal breast cancer
Scheidbach et al. (2000) [87]BRCA2-mutated MBC1Describe a case of BRCA2-mutation positive MBC
Kwiatkowska et al. (2002) [89]BRCA2-mutated MBC2Novel BRCA2 mutation (frameshift mutation 6621del4 in exon 11) in two male breast cancer cases (father and son) in a Polish family.
Brenner et al. (2004) [86]BRCA2-mutated MBC1Highlight a case of BRCA2-mutation positive MBC and the implications for screening
Karamanakos et al. (2004) [83]BRCA1-mutated MBC1A case of male breast adenocarcinoma in a prostate cancer patient following prolonged anti-androgen monotherapy
Azzouzi et al. (2007) [88]BRCA2-mutated MBC3To highlight three BRCA2-positive MBC patients who were identified following positive prostate cancer screening
Panchal et al. (2009) [85]BRCA2-mutated MBC1A case of BRCA2-mutation positive MBC case with a history of prostate cancer
Guaoua et al. (2014) [82]BRCA2-mutated MBC1An account of a novel BRCA2c.6428C>A p.Ser2143Ter nonsense mutation in a man with familial breast cancer
Benjamin & Riker (2015) [73]BRCA1/HER2-positive MBC1To describe a case of a BRCA1/HER2 positive MBC
Singer et al. (2015) [80]BRCA2-mutated MBC1Highlight the risk of BRCA2 on multiple cancer risk through a case of prostate and MBC.
Saha et al. (2017) [81]BRCA1-mutated MBC1Describe the treatment of MBC by dual HER2 blockade and response prediction using novel optical tomography imaging.
Cheng et al. (2019) [79]BRCA2-mutated MBC1To describe an account of metachronous MBC that progressed following radio and chemotherapy which responded to palbociclib, fulvestrant and leuprolide.
Huszno et al. (2019) [91]BRCA2-mutated MBC1Clinicopathological analysis of BRCA2 gene variant, c. 2808_2811delACAA (p. Ala938Profs) in MBC
MBC, Male Breast Cancer.
Table 3. Summary of clinical trials involving PARPi and BRCA-positive FBC and MBC patients.
Table 3. Summary of clinical trials involving PARPi and BRCA-positive FBC and MBC patients.
Phase III Trial (Year) Trial ArmsStudy PopulationNo. of PatientsStudy Result
PARPi (F/M)PFS HR (95%CI)mPFS (Months)ORR (%)
Advanced breast cancer
OlympiAD (2017) [38]Olaparib vs. standard chemotherapyPatients with <2 lines of previous chemotherapy205 (200/5)0.58 (0.43–0.80);
p < 0.001
7.0 vs. 4.259.9 vs. 28.8
EMBRACA (2018) [40]Talazoparib vs. standard single agent of a clinician’s choice *gBRCA-mutated287 (283/4)0.54 (0.410.71);
p < 0.001
8.6 vs. 5.662.2 vs. 27.2
BROCADE (2020) [103]Veliparib with carboplatin/paclitaxel vs. carboplatin/paclitaxel alonegBRCA-mutated337 (333/4)0.71 (0.57–0.88);
p = 0.0016
14.5 vs. 12.6
Early breast cancer DD or death (99.5%CI)ID or death (99.5%CI)
OlympiA (2021) [67] Olaparib vs. placebogBRCA-mutated with local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy921 (919/2)0.57 (0.39–0.83);
p < 0.001
0.58 (0.41–0.82);
p < 0.001
* Capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine. Trial results that led to approval are in Bold. CI, Confidence Interval; DD, Distant disease; HR, Hazard Ratio; ID, Invasive disease; mPFS, median Progression Free Survival; PARPi, Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase inhibitor; PFS, Progression Free Survival.
Table 4. Summary of clinical trials involving PARPi and BRCA-positive mCRPC patients.
Table 4. Summary of clinical trials involving PARPi and BRCA-positive mCRPC patients.
Trial (Year) PhaseTrial ArmsStudy PopulationNo. of PatientsStudy Result
PROfound (2020) [41]IIIOlaparib versus standard anti-androgen therapyCohort A (BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM mutation)162rPFS 7.4 m vs. 3.6 m; HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.25–0.47);
p < 0.001
Cohort A+ B (Other DDR alterations *)256rPFS 5.8 m vs. 3.5 m; HR 0.49 (0.38–0.63);
p < 0.001
TRITON2 (2020) [105]IIRucaparibgBRCA-mutated mCRPC patients progressing after previous androgen hormonal therapy and a taxane chemotherapy177rORRa BRCA-mutated 43.5% (95% CI, 31.0–56.7) and independent investigator ORR 50.8% (95% CI 38.1–63.4) rORR a for other HRD-mutation 28.6%; CHEK2-mutation 11.1%; ATM-mutation 10.5%; CDK2-mutation 0%
GALAHAD (2019) [106]IINiraparibmCRPC and biallelic DRD mutated mCRPC patients with disease progression on taxane and androgen receptor-targeted therapy.81rORR a BRCA-mutated 41% (95% CI 23.5–61.6); rPFS 8.2 (95% CI 5.2–11.1)
rORR a BRCA1/2-WT HRD-mutation 9% (95% CI 1.1–29.2); rPFS 5.3 (95% CI 1.9–5.7)
TALAPRO-1 (2020) [107]IITalazoparibBRCA- mutated mCRPC patients with disease progression on taxane and androgen receptor-targeted therapy46ORR 43.9%; rPFS 9.3 (95% CI 8.1–13.7)
BRCA-WT mCRPC patients40ORR PALB2-mutated 33%; rPFS 7.4 (95% CI 2–7.4); ATM-mutated 11.8%; rPFS 5.5 95% CI (1.7–8.2)
* Genes included BRIP1, BARD1, CDK12, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCL, PALB2, PPP2R2A, RAD51B, RAD51C, RAD51D, and RAD54L. a Determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Trial results that led to approval are in Bold. CI, Confidence Interval; DDR, DNA Damage Response; HR, Hazard Ratio; HRD, Homologous Repair Deficiency; ORR, Objective Response Rate; PARPi, Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase inhibitor; rPFS, radiological Progression Free Survival; rORR, radiological Objective Response Rate.
Table 5. Summary of clinical trials involving a PARPi in combination with an anti-cancer agent in BRCA-positive mCRPC patients.
Table 5. Summary of clinical trials involving a PARPi in combination with an anti-cancer agent in BRCA-positive mCRPC patients.
TrialPhasePARPiCombined Agent
Anti-androgen therapy
PROpel [113]IIIOlaparibAbiraterone
MAGNITUDE [114]IIINiraparibAbiraterone
TALAPRO-2 [115]IIITalazoparibEnzalutamide
NCT02484404 [116]I/IIOlaparibDurvalumab
NCT03787680 [119]IIOlaparibCeralasertib
High dose testosterone
NCT03516812 [120]IIOlaparibTestosterone enanthate or cypionate
PARPi, Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase inhibitor.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

McClurg, D.P.; Urquhart, G.; McGoldrick, T.; Chatterji, S.; Miedzybrodzka, Z.; Speirs, V.; Elsberger, B. Analysis of the Clinical Advancements for BRCA-Related Malignancies Highlights the Lack of Treatment Evidence for BRCA-Positive Male Breast Cancer. Cancers 2022, 14, 3175.

AMA Style

McClurg DP, Urquhart G, McGoldrick T, Chatterji S, Miedzybrodzka Z, Speirs V, Elsberger B. Analysis of the Clinical Advancements for BRCA-Related Malignancies Highlights the Lack of Treatment Evidence for BRCA-Positive Male Breast Cancer. Cancers. 2022; 14(13):3175.

Chicago/Turabian Style

McClurg, Dylan P., Gordan Urquhart, Trevor McGoldrick, Subarnarekha Chatterji, Zosia Miedzybrodzka, Valerie Speirs, and Beatrix Elsberger. 2022. "Analysis of the Clinical Advancements for BRCA-Related Malignancies Highlights the Lack of Treatment Evidence for BRCA-Positive Male Breast Cancer" Cancers 14, no. 13: 3175.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop