Aspects to consider regarding breast cancer risk in trans men: A systematic review and risk management approach

Edvin Wahlström; Riccardo A Audisio; Gennaro Selvaggi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299333

. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0299333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299333

Aspects to consider regarding breast cancer risk in trans men: A systematic review and risk management approach

Edvin Wahlström ^1,^*, Riccardo A Audisio ^2,^#, Gennaro Selvaggi ^1,^#

Editor: Daniele Ugo Tari³

PMCID: PMC10919728 PMID: 38451995

Abstract

Background

The risk of breast cancer in trans men is currently a poorly understood subject and trans men likely carries a different level of risk from that of cis women.

Aim

This review aims to review several aspects that affects breast cancer risk in trans men and to apply the Swiss cheese model to highlight these risks. The study takes its cue from a systematic review of all described breast cancer cases in trans men following medical or surgical intervention because of gender dysphoria.

Methods

PubMed was systematically searched on the 14th of March 2023 to find all published cases of breast cancer following chest contouring surgery in trans men. Included articles had to involve trans men, the diagnosis of breast cancer had to be preceded by either a medical or surgical intervention related to gender dysphoria, and cases needed to involve invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ. Articles were excluded if gender identity in the case subject was unclear and/or a full English version of the report was unavailable. Quality and risk of bias was evaluated using the GRADE protocol. A literature review of specific risk altering aspects in this population followed. The Swiss cheese model was employed to present a risk analysis and to propose ways of managing this risk.

Results

28 cases of breast cancer in trans men have been published. The Swiss cheese model identified several weaknesses associated with methods of preventing breast cancer in trans men.

Clinical implications

This study may highlight the difficulties with managing risk factors concerning breast cancer in trans men to clinicians not encountering this patient group frequently.

Conclusion

This review finds that evidence for most aspects concerning breast cancer in trans men are inadequate, which supports the establishment of a risk-management approach to breast cancer in trans men.

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in the biological female population and constitutes almost 25% of all new female cancers [1]. The Global Cancer Observatory estimates that 47.8 in 100,000 cis women are diagnosed with breast cancer annually [2]. For the Swedish population the highest incidence is found in women aged 70 to 74 years [3].

People with gender dysphoria (GD) likely carry different risk of breast cancer compared to cis women. The risk of breast cancer is probably affected by both the surgical and medical treatments offered to these patients. The current knowledge concerning the risk altering effects of these procedures, in both the pre- and postoperative trans male population, for breast cancer remain unknown.

Other unknown aspects, specific to the trans male population, might also alter the breast cancer risk profile. These issues suggest that breast cancer in the trans male population could develop into a public health issue and, as such, should be regulated by policy and guidelines. In this review, we searched the available literature to determine the epidemiology of breast cancer in trans men both pre- and post-chest contouring mastectomy (CCM). Additionally, we discuss the rationale for breast cancer screening in trans men and whether histopathologic examination of removed breast tissue should be required at the time of CCM.

Materials and methods

Search methodology

We performed a systematic literature search on the 14^th of March 2023, using PubMed to identify all published cases of breast cancer in trans men. Eligibility for inclusion was as follows: (1) cases had to involve trans men, (2) breast cancer diagnosis needed to be preceded by a GD-related intervention (either androgen therapy or a type of CCM), and/or (3) cases needed to involve invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) gender identity in the case subject was unclear and/or (2) a full English version of the report was unavailable.

The first author (EW) screened all articles produced by the final search first by titles, followed by abstracts and finally full-text. All titles excluded after full-text review and the reasonings for it can be found in S1 Table. EW retrieved all data gathered from the included articles and synthesized these as presented in the results section.

Search terms were derived from relevant articles either previously known to the authors or through an initial unstructured search. These initial search terms were then divided into subject and object categories and complemented with corresponding Medical Subject Heading terms. Synonyms and conjugations of the search terms were added to the final search, which was then validated by cross-referencing all articles used to derive the initial search terms. The final search terms were as follows: ("breast cancer"[Text Word] OR "breast malignancy"[Text Word] OR "breast Neoplasms"[Text Word] OR "Breast carcinoma"[Text Word] OR ("breast"[Text Word] AND "carcinoma"[Text Word]) OR ("breast Neoplasms"[MeSH Terms] OR "carcinoma, ductal, breast"[MeSH Terms] OR "breast carcinoma in situ"[MeSH Terms])) AND ("transgender"[Text Word] OR "transgender male*"[Text Word] OR "female-to-male"[Text Word] OR "female-to-male"[Text Word] OR "transexual*"[Text Word] OR "trans man"[Text Word] OR "trans men"[Text Word] OR ("transgender persons*"[MeSH Terms] OR "transsexualism*"[MeSH Terms] OR "gender identity"[MeSH Terms])). The full search methodology can be found in S2 Table.

Additionally, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify studies on breast cancer screening in the trans male population, as well as those reporting existing indications for histopathologic examination following GD-related mastectomy.

No study protocol was established, and the review have not been registered.

Risk analysis

To illustrate ways of mitigating the risk of breast cancer in trans men we employed the Swiss cheese model of risk analysis [4]. The model illustrates how a hazard can develop into an accident. It assumes accidents often are the outcome of a series of failures. The model offers a structured way of identifying protective factors reducing hazards, and what weaknesses in these factors risk leading to accidents. We used the model to illustrate the hazard of breast cancer in trans men, what specific factors that could work protectively, and what weaknesses in these protective factors could be identified.

Structural design

The search method was illustrated using the PRISMA flowchart template [5]. All studies used in this systematic review were assessed for quality by EW using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations protocol [6]. No statistical synthesis of results were conducted from the included studies.

Ethics

This review only reports on previously published data. As such, approval from an ethical board has not been indicated.

Results

Cases of breast cancer in trans men

Database searches yielded 374 results. Fig 1 describes the screening process. After screening titles and abstracts, 51 articles were selected for full-text screening. We identified and included five additional articles from the references of the 51 articles, resulting in a total of 56 articles. Of these, 34 were removed due to inclusion/exclusion criteria. A complete list of reasons for the exclusions is provided in S1 Table. Of the 22 included articles, there were five retrospective observational studies [7–11] and 17 case reports [12–28]. Table 1 describes all included cases.

Table 1. Reported cases of breast cancer in trans men.

Study	Age at diagnosis (y)	Breast cancer type	ER	PR	AR	HER2	Testosterone treatment prior to diagnosis	Mastectomy prior to diagnosis	BRCA1/2
Baker et al. (2021) [7]	29	DCIS	NR	NR	NR	NR	61 mo	Incidental finding at CCM	NR
Brown & Jones (2015) [8]^a	78	NR	+	−	NR	NR	11 y	NR	NR
de Blok et al. (2019) [9]	NR^b	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	Yes^c	Yes^c	NR
de Blok et al. (2019) [9]	NR^b	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	Yes^c	Yes^c	NR
de Blok et al. (2019) [9]	NR^b	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	Yes^c	Yes^c	NR
de Blok et al. (2019) [9]	NR^b	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	Yes^c	Incidental finding at CCM	NR
Gooren et al. (2013) [10]	27	Grade 1 tubular adenocarcinoma	+	+	NR	NR	3 y	Incidental finding at CCM	NR
van Renterghem et al. (2018) [11]	31	Invasive carcinoma	+	+	NR	–	16 mo	Incidental find at CCM	NR
Barghouthi et al. (2018) [12]	28	Grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma	−	−	−	+	1 y	No	−
Burcombe et al. (2003) [13]	33	Grade 1 ductal carcinoma (pT4aN0M0)	+	+	NR	NR	13 y	Yes, 10 y before diagnosis	NR
Chotai et al. (2019) [14]	58	Grade 3 invasive carcinoma with ductal features	+	+	NR	NR	10 y^d	Yes, 20 y before diagnosis	NR
Eismann et al. (2019) [15]	29	DCIS	+	NR	NR	NR	4 y	Incidental finding at CCM	−
Fehl et al. (2019) [16]	41	Invasive ductal carcinoma	+	+	+	+	7 mo	Palpable mass detected before CCM	NR
Fledderus et al. (2020) [17]	50	DCIS	NR	NR	NR	NR	3 y	Incidental finding at CCM	NR
Fundytus et al. (2020) [18]	48	Invasive ductal carcinoma stage IIA (pT1pN1M0)	+	+	+	−	19 y	Partial mastectomy, later incidental finding at CCM	NR
Gooren et al. (2015) [19]	48	Infiltrating ductal carcinoma	−	−	NR	−	9 y	Yes, 7 y before diagnosis	NR
Gooren et al. (2015) [19]	41	Tubular adenocarcinoma (pT1aN0M0); TNM stage I.	+	+	NR	−	1 y	Incidental finding at CCM	NR
Katayama et al. (2016) [20]	41	Neuroendocrine carcinoma (pT1cN0M0)	+	+	+	NR	15 y	Yes, 12 y before diagnosis	NR
Kopetti et al. (2021) [21]	28	Invasive breast carcinoma (pT2cN0cM0)	+	−	+	+	30 mo	Yes, 2 y before diagnosis	−
Light et al. (2020) [22]	44	Invasive ductal carcinoma	+	+	+	−	3 mo	Incidental finding before CCM	NR
Mingrino & Wang (2021) [23]	51	DCIS	−	NR	+	+	1 y	Incidental finding at CCM	−
Nikolic et al. (2012) [24]	42	Invasive ductal carcinoma T2N2M1	−	−	+	+	30 mo	Yes, 1 y before diagnosis	NR
Parmeshwar et al. (2021) [25]	31	Invasive ductal carcinoma	+	+	+	−	17 y	Incidental find at physical examination prior to CCM	−
Shao et al. (2011) [26]	53	Grade 2 invasive ductal carcinoma	+	−	NR	+	5 y	No	−
Shao et al. (2011) [26]	27	Invasive ductal carcinoma	+	+	NR	+	6 y	No	−
Tanini et al. (2019) [27]	36	Invasive carcinoma	+	+	+	+	3 y	No	−
Tanini et al. (2019) [27]	33	Grade 3 DCIS	+	+	+	NR	30 mo	Incidental finding at CCM	NR
Treskova et al. (2018) [28]	58	Invasive ductal carcinoma	+	+	NR	+	25 y	Incidental finding during preoperative screening for CCM	NR

Open in a new tab

This table shows all reported cases of breast cancer in trans men after receiving either cross sex hormone treatment or undergoing chest contouring mastectomy.

Footnotes.

^a This was the only case in the article reporting androgen treatment prior to diagnosis.

^b Age at breast cancer diagnosis varied between ages 35–59 (median 47).

^c All patients received testosterone treatment for a median of 15 years (range: 2–17 years) prior to diagnosis was 15 years (range 2–17). Three of four cases were diagnosed several years after CCM.

^d Received testosterone injections for 10 years but stopped thereafter on his own accord 10 years before diagnosis.

CCM = chest contouring mastectomy, NR = not reported, ER = estrogen receptor, PR = progesterone receptor, AR = androgen receptor, DCIS = ductal carcinoma in situ, HER2 = human epidermal growth factor receptor 2,”–”= Negative,” +” = Positive.

Among the 22 articles, we identified 28 unique cases, with nine of these describing findings that occurred after CCM [9, 13, 14, 19–21, 24]. Time to breast cancer diagnosis after CCM was specified in six cases [13, 14, 19–21, 24] and ranged from 1 to 20 years (median: 8.5 years). All 28 cases received cross sex hormone treatment (CSH) preceding breast cancer diagnosis, although one case had terminated CSH treatment 10 years prior to diagnosis and after 10 years of treatment. The mean duration of CSH to breast cancer diagnosis was 6.7 years (median: 3.5 years). Age at breast cancer diagnosis was specified in 24 cases (mean: 41 years, 10 months) [7, 8, 10–28]. In the other four cases, age at diagnosis reportedly varied from 35 to 59 years (median: 47 years) [9].

Quality assessment of the included studies on breast cancer in trans men

All but one study were of very low quality [7, 8, 10–28] and demonstrated poor study design. All case reports were downgraded due to bias derived from the study design and publication bias. Of the five observational studies, four were assessed as very low quality [7, 8, 10, 11] for the following reasons: (1) improper reporting of confounding factors [8, 10], (2) the study was underpowered [7, 8, 11], and (3) the study was improperly controlled [7, 10, 11].

We graded one retrospective observational study as low quality [9]. This was not downgraded further for the following reasons: (1) the study was adequately powered; and (2) although breast tissue from trans men more often underwent histopathologic examination relative to that from cis women, the study still found a lower incidence of breast cancer in the evaluated trans men relative to the evaluated cis women. Table 2 describes the quality assessment.

Table 2. Quality assessment.

Article	Study design	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias	Large effect	Dose response	Confounders reducing effect	GRADE
Baker et al. (2021) [7]	Observational	Uneven study populations.	—	No	Not adequately powered	Unlikely		Cannot be determined.	No	Very low.
Brown & Jones (2015) [8]	Observational	Confounders not adequately reported. Study population not adequately reported.	—	No	Large CI. Not adequately powered.	—	—		Not adequately reported. A possible major confounder is the histopathologic examination at surgery	Very low.
de Blok et al. (2019) [9]	Observational	Confounders not adequately reported in control group	—	No	Large CI across a 30–50-y timeline. Few events, although adequately powered	—	—	Inverted	Not adequately reported. A possible major confounder is histopathologic examination at surgery	Low.
Gooren et al. (2013) [10]	Obeservational	No control group. Confounders not adequately reported.	—	No	Few events, possibly fragile results.	—		Cannot be determined.	Cannot be determined.	Very low.
van Renterghem et al. (2018) [11]	Observational	No control group and underpowered.	—	No	No	No		Cannot be determined	No	Very low.
Barghouthi et al. (2018) [12]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Burcombe et al. (2003) [13]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Chotai et al. (2019) [14]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Eismann et al. (2019) [15]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Fehl et al. (2019) [16]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Fledderus et al. (2020) [17]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Fundytus et al. (2020) [18]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Gooren et al. (2015) [19]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Katayama et al. (2016) [20]	Case report	High because of study design.	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Kopetti et al. (2021) [21]	Case report/review	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Light et al. (2020) [22]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Mingrino & Wang (2021) [23]	Case report	High, because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Nikolic et al. (2012) [24]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Parmeshwar et al. (2021) [25]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Shao et al. (2011) [26]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Tanini et al. (2019) [27]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.
Treskova et al. (2018) [28]	Case report	High because of study design	—	No	—	Likely	—	—	—	Very low.

Open in a new tab

Quality assessment results for the included studies using the GRADE protocol.

Footnotes.

CI = confidence interval, GRADE = Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations [6], “—”= Not applicable.

Epidemiology of breast cancer in trans men

Gooren et al. reported a breast cancer incidence of 5.9 in 100,000 trans men in a Dutch cohort [10]. Recently, De Blok et al., also in a dutch cohort, calculated an incidence ratio of 0.2 for trans men as compared with cis women and 58.9 for trans men to cis men, also noting that within the Dutch population, breast cancer in trans men is diagnosed at an earlier age (median: 47 years; range 35–59 years) relative to cis women (average: 61 years) [9]. The age at breast cancer diagnosis in the trans male population is consistent with the age ranges reported in the 28 cases from the included articles. Notably, four of the 28 cases included in this review involved the cohort evaluated by de Blok et al.

Among studies estimating breast cancer incidence in trans men, the overall age of the cohorts is often relatively young: the median age of de Block et al.’s cohort was 39 (interquartile range 26–51) [9]. Gooren et al. (2013) reported a mean age of 23.2 ± 6.5 years of their cohort, with a median follow-up of 16.8 years (range 6.0–36 years) [10]. Despite the follow-up period, the study did not evaluate higher age groups, which typically present higher incidences of breast cancer across the population of cis women [29].

Brown and Jones have presented the oldest cohort to date when investigating the breast cancer incidence in a cohort of 5,135 transgender patients. Of these, 1,579 were assigned female sex at birth and had a mean age of 55.6 years with 25% of patients above 65 years old. The authors reported a standardized breast cancer incidence ratio of 1.64 as compared with cis women, although statistically insignificant with CI 95% 0.24–7.22 [8]. If constrained to cases with prior testosterone use the reported standardized incidence ratio was 0,26 CI 95% 0–3.69, also statistically insignificant. Notably, this study did not exclusively evaluate trans men but rather included patients of “unspecified gender disorder” and “transvestic fetishism” in their cohort. Furthermore, they presented data from transgender men labelled as “females” and compared them with cis women also labelled as “females”.

Previous systematic reviews of studies on breast cancer incidence in trans men also reported that the overall quality of studies was low [30, 31], and that the risk of bias in cohort studies is high [17]. One review concluded that cancer incidence in older trans men cannot be determined, and that breast cancer in trans men is diagnosed earlier as compared with that in cis women and cis men [32]. Detection of breast cancer in trans men at a younger age than cis women could be a result of age bias related to the rising incidence of GD accompanied by a lack of long-term follow-up in an adequate number of trans men. Further investigations are needed to clarify these findings.

Breast cancer screening in cis women

The World Health Organization recommends that all women aged 50 to 69 years undergo a mammography every 2 years [33]. Current Swedish guidelines for cis women suggest a more extensive screening scheme, with routine mammography starting at age 40 and then repeating every 18 to 24 months until age 74. High-risk patients, such as BRCA1/2 carriers, are offered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening from age 25 to 55 years [34]. The increased sensitivity of MRI is used for special cases, with ultrasound recommended for those with an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer (at least a 20% likelihood), presenting dense breast tissue, and aged <50 years [35].

Breast cancer screening in trans men

Specific guidelines for breast cancer screening in trans men before CCM mimic current recommendations for cis women [17, 36–46]. Roznovjak et al. [47] and Meggetto et al. [48] reported a lack of consistency in existing recommendations for screening in trans men following CCM. For example, some hospitals in the United States advise discussion between physician and patient regarding screening. Additionally, the Susan G. Komen organization recommends annual chest and axillary exams by a health care professional [42], and The Canadian Cancer Society recommends mammograms every 2 years between age 50 and 69 years [44]. Table 3 summarizes the current guidelines.

Table 3. Guidelines for breast cancer screening, pre- and post-chest contouring mastectomy, in trans men.

Source of guidelines	Pre-CCM	Post-CCM
Fledderus et al. (2020) [17]	Same screening as that used for cis females	Individual assessment
Guidelines for gender-affirming primary care with trans and non-binary patients [36]	Same screening as that used for cis females	No screening necessary. Breast self-examination should be encouraged.
University of California, San Francisco Transgender Care [37]	Same screening as that used for cis females	Dialogue between patient and physician
Transgender Primary Medical Care: Suggested Guidelines for Clinicians in British Columbia (Canada) [38]	Same screening as that used for cis females	Annual chest-wall and axillary exams and patient education on residual breast tissue
The Fenway Institute [39]	Same screening as that used for cis females	Annual chest-wall and axillary exams; educating patients about residual breast tissue and breast cancer risk
University Hospitals, Ohio (United States) [40]	Same screening as that used for cis females	Dialogue between patient and physician regarding appropriate screening modality; screening not specified
NHS Scotland [41]	Same screening as that used for cis females	No screening necessary
Susan G. Komen organization [42]	Same screening as that used for cis females	Annual chest-wall and axillary exams
Cancer Care Manitoba, Canada [43]	Same screening as that used for cis females	Dialogue between patient and physician
Canadian Cancer Society [44]	Same screening as that used for cis females	Same screening as that used for cis females
Cancer Research UK [45]	Same screening as that used for cis females	No screening; mammograms not considered feasible
Breastscreen Victoria [46]	Same screening as that used for cis females	Dialogue between patient and physician

Open in a new tab

This table demonstrates the heterogeneity of recommendations for screening protocols following chest contouring mastectomy in trans men.

Footnotes.

CCM = chest contouring mastectomy.

Histopathologic examination of breast tissue from cis women

Similar to CCM, reduction mammoplasty (RM) is routinely performed on breast tissue that is assumed to be free of malignancies. Routine histopathologic examination of excised breast tissue following RM, independent of age, is common in the field of plastic surgery [49, 50]. Importantly, the cost of histopathologic examination when accounting for the rarity of malignant findings in patients <40 years of age makes this decision one of cost versus benefit [50].

Several authors offer different recommendations regarding when histopathology following RM is indicated. Ambaye et al. [51] evaluated breast tissue samples collected from RMs in 595 patients, concluding that histologic examination is only necessary in patients aged <35 years when clinical lesions are present or in cases of a strong family history of breast cancer. For patients aged >35 years, they recommended gross examination of breast tissue by a pathologist, followed by histopathologic examination of up to seven breast sections or up to six sections for patients aged >50 years [51]. Analysis of the pathology records of 1,388 RM patients by Hassan and Pacifico [52] led to a recommendation of histopathologic assessment starting at age 30. Conversely, Merkkola-von Schantz et al. [53] suggested that all post-RM specimens should undergo pathologic assessment.

The Royal Collage of Pathologists deems routine histopathologic examination following RM to be of limited value [54]. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommends histopathology “when clinically indicated and after careful consideration of patient history, risks, and benefits” [55]. Furthermore, Swedish national guidelines recommend that RM specimens undergo histopathologic examination for patients aged ≥40 years, except in cases of a family history of breast cancer or the presence of genetic mutations (e.g., BRCA1/2) [56].

Epidemiological data should also be considered, given the varying prevalence of breast cancer between countries. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the age-standardized breast cancer incidence rate in Sweden is estimated at 83.9 in 100,000 cis women, whereas Belgium presents the highest incidence in the world at 113.2 in 100,000 cis women (the worldwide incidence is estimated at 47.8 in 100,000 cis women) [2]. Therefore, guidelines for histopathologic examination of breast tissue likely need to be adjusted according to incidence based on location. This was emphasized in Hassan and Pacifico´s article by a statement that their results (and thus their recommendations) were best compared/applied to geographically similar populations [52].

Histopathologic examination of breast tissue from trans men

To date, no guidelines regarding histopathologic examinations after CCM have been established. Despite the lack of evidence, recommendations for histopathologic examination following CCM have been proposed. Two recent articles recommend that all excised breast tissue undergo pathologic examination [57, 58], with Hernandez et al. (2020) recommending examination of four tissue blocks per mastectomy [58]. At our clinic, histologic examination of excised breast tissue is routinely performed for all trans men following CCM; however, there are no studies confirming this practice as a clinical necessity.

Comparison and applicability

Similarities exist between RM in cis women and CCM in trans men. First, both patient groups present similar variance in family history of breast cancer, which can affect preoperative breast radiological or genetic screening. Moreover, this outcome could necessitate deviation from the original desired procedure (RM for cis women and CCM for trans men) and result in patient referral to a breast oncoplastic specialist. Second, when presenting a negative family history of breast cancer, both patient groups will undergo a type of procedure that includes breast remodelling. This involves reductions in breast glandular tissue along with retention of an unspecified amount of this tissue. Given these similarities, existing guidelines for RM could highlight the benefit of histopathologic examination after CCM in trans men.

Notably, there are also differences between RM and CCM patient groups. First, cross-sex hormone treatment (CSH) is an obvious and questionable difference, although there is no consensus on whether and to what extent CSH affects the risk of developing breast cancer. Second, as previously noted, it is possible that some trans men may not adhere to established guidelines for breast cancer screening. A study performed in a primary care setting in Canada reported lower screening rates for transgender patients as compared with cis gendered patients [59]. Third, we hypothesize that trans men likely demonstrate a decreased willingness to follow consistent self-examination of the breasts, given that an aversion toward female secondary sex characteristics is common in patients with GD.

Existing breast cancer screening guidelines for trans men pre-CCM mirror current guidelines for cis women (Table 2). As a result, the expectation should be that post-CCM histopathologic examination for trans men adheres to guidelines for post-RM histopathologic examinations for cis women. Given the relatively young age of trans men diagnosed with breast cancer, it remains to be determined whether a more cautious approach to both screening guidelines and the necessity for histopathologic examination following CCM are considered. Moreover, decisions need to be made as to whether these guidelines should be adjusted based on the incidence of breast cancer for a specific population. Furthermore, it remains to be determined whether the young age of trans men presenting with breast cancer is a consequence of age bias due to the increasing number of young trans men requesting a mastectomy.

Surgical considerations regarding breast cancer risk

Breast glandular tissue that is retained following a mastectomy in trans men is usually more abundant than that retained in cis women. Despite this, physicians may assume that trans men post-CCM would be left with the same amount of breast tissue as cis women following prophylactic mastectomy. CCM is typically not a radical procedure, with some breast tissue retained to allow reconstruction of the chest to provide a masculine appearance. Specifically, breast tissue is retained at the level of the axilla, if present, and the superior quadrants by some surgeons in order to maintain resemblance of the pectoralis major muscles and/or anatomic symmetry with the rest of the upper body in patients presenting a high body mass index [60]. The nipple areola complex and some of the tissue underneath is retained in nearly every case in order to maintain vascularization [61].

A survey of plastic surgeons performing CCM in the United States confirmed that only 28% of respondents routinely remove all of the breast tissue during CCM [62], confirming that CCM is not comparable to prophylactic mastectomies and, therefore, not relevant to eliminating the risk of breast cancer. However, a previous study indicated the likelihood that reducing the amount of breast tissue lowers the risk of developing breast cancer. In a retrospective review of 31,910 medical records of Swedish patients that underwent breast reduction, Boice et al. reported an incidence ratio for breast cancer of 0.72 as compared with the general population [63].

Cross sex hormone therapy

Assumptions of a low risk of breast cancer following CCM in trans men are based on the small amount of retained breast tissue and low levels of estrogen [20]. However, high levels of endogenous testosterone have been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer in cis women [64–68]. In trans men, high doses of CSH are administered and result in testosterone serum levels higher than those in cis women and similar to those in cis men [69]. The impact of these levels on breast cancer risk, as well as their cancer-specific mechanisms, in trans men remains unknown.

In cis women that produce high levels of testosterone, studies suggest that increased aromatase activity involved in estrogen production represents a possible oncogenic pathway [64]; however, the presence of a similar pathway in trans men remains to be determined. Additionally, a retrospective chart review by Chan et al. [70] with a 6-year follow-up showed low estradiol levels and no increases in these levels in CSH-treated trans men. This suggests that peripherally converted testosterone should not be an issue in trans men. Although not measured in their investigation, Chan et al. advised that intracellular conversion might still occur. Under such conditions, CSH might increase the risk for breast cancer in trans men through aromatase conversion. Furthermore, pathways related to androgen receptors could potentially be involved in breast cancer risk in trans men based on their roles in breast cancer in cis women [65, 66].

Breast cancer screening modalities for trans men

There are no reports on screening modalities for breast cancer in trans men, making it unclear to what extent mammography sensitivity and specificity exist pre- and post-CCM. There are numerous potential differences in screening modalities between cis women, trans men, and cis men.

First, it remains to be determined whether anatomical differences created by the choice of CCM technique affect breast screening. Specifically, it is unknown whether special radiological techniques in addition to or instead of mammography are necessary to perform an equally effective assessment post-CCM according to anatomical changes. Given the similarity in the gross anatomy of the chest between cis men and post-CCM trans men, it is likely that guidance on screening modalities in cis men can be effectively utilized.

A recent study that included high-risk cis males that underwent mammogram screening reported 100% sensitivity and 95% specificity for that method [71], which agrees with its use as the primary imaging modality recommended for cis men [72]. This suggests that mammography post-CCM would likely be equally effective in trans men, although the anatomical effects of CCM on these outcomes remain to be determined. Importantly, a previous study showed that scarring after RM can increase the complexity of interpreting mammograms, suggesting complementary use of a secondary modality for the first screening post-RM [73].

Second, it is unclear how CSH therapy affects breast tissue and screening performance pre- and post-CCM. Histopathology studies report an increased ratio of fibrous stroma in trans men receiving CSH [74–77]. Recently, Baker et al. showed that trans men receiving CSH presented more extensive lobular atrophy; fewer cysts, fibroadenomas, and papillomas; and decreased pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia and inflammation relative to those not receiving CSH [7]. However, the authors were unable to show significant differences between groups regarding atypical lesions, such as ductal carcinoma or atypical ductal hyperplasia.

Additionally, Torous and Schnitt identified calcifications in 22% of the examined breast tissue from trans men as compared with 6% in breast tissue from cis women who had undergone breast-reduction [74]. Given that calcifications can be a sign of malignancy [78], an increased ratio of these in trans men could increase the number of biopsies required according to many screening programs.

Given the effects of both surgery and CSH on breast parenchyma, available screening modalities for trans men need to be validated, including their specificity, sensitivity, the number of exams leading to biopsies, and the risk/benefit ratio of mammography.

Screening-related harm

The risk/benefit ratio is a central aspect of any screening program. A 2012 report on breast cancer screening programs in the United Kingdom concluded that overdiagnosis was the major contributor to harm associated with screening outcomes [79]. The report estimated an ~11% chance of risk associated with overdiagnosis while acknowledging that such estimations are complicated by the different methodologies. Other harms in these cases include damage from radiation treatment, incidence of false-positives/-negatives, potential morbidity/mortality, and the psychological impact of the diagnosis.

When performing mammograms, the final dose of radiation varies according to the number and type of images collected. Although risk of radiation-induced cancer is low, the benefits greatly outweigh the risk in these cases [79]. A study by Berrington de Gonzalez estimated that only between three and six in 10,000 women would develop cancer as a result of screening-related radiation, assuming that they underwent screening every 3 years between the ages of 47 and 73 years [80].

Risk management

Because the incidence of GD has increased in recent decades [81], we expect that the incidence of breast cancer in trans men will likely increase in proportion. As a result, the need for evidence-based guidelines, treatments, and prevention measures will also increase. There currently exist few studies on different aspects related to these issues in trans men. Although epidemiological studies have been conducted on trans men, few included cohorts at an advance age, thereby failing to offer insight into a lifetime risk of breast cancer in trans men. Given that the current status of research in this area suggests the likelihood of such risks being underestimated, a risk-management approach is appropriate.

Risk management aims to mitigate risks before mistakes/errors occur, making it particularly applicable in situations where the magnitude of outcomes is uncertain. For example, a recent study applied longitudinal risk management to patients with an increased risk of breast cancer [82]. The Swiss cheese model is a risk-management approach that categorizes poor outcomes as follows: (1) active failures resulting from actions by people in direct contact with patients or systems (i.e., procedural complications due to negligence or deviation from protocol) or (2) mistakes or errors resulting from latent conditions that represent underlying weaknesses in the system [4].

Active failures can be mitigated by standardizing procedures but are difficult to completely remove because of the inherent nature of humans toward making mistakes. By contrast, mitigating the risk of latent conditions is more easily sustained due to its systematic nature. Disease screening represents a method for mitigating the risk of a latent condition. Mitigating active failures in this context could involve increasing the awareness of a screening program and encouraging patient participation.

The Swiss cheese model can identify the barriers that exist to decreasing the risk of something happening and highlight weaknesses that allow mistakes to happen. To apply this model to manage the risk of breast cancer in trans men, we use cheese slices to represent preventive measures taken by health care entities and holes in the cheese slices to represent the weaknesses of the system (Fig 2).

Illustration of the five barriers identified as part of the Swiss cheese model. To apply this model to manage the risk of breast cancer in trans men, we use cheese slices to represent preventive measures taken by health care entities and holes in the cheese slices to represent the weaknesses of the system.

Slice 1: Identify high-risk patients

This includes a review of patient medical and family history in order to identify risk status in relation to breast cancer and in consideration of CCM planning. Therefore, holes in Slice 1 include not identifying patients with a genetic predisposition to cancer and failing to offer prophylactic mastectomy.

Slice 2: Screening

This includes employment of pre-surgery mammograms and breast cancer screening guidelines. Additionally, this would include the use of personnel trained in caring for the subset of trans men indicated for breast cancer screening (patients aged >40 years or at high risk). Holes for Slice 2 include low participation in screening programs, perceived discrimination by health care workers, aversion to examinations perceived as a female activity, improperly performed mammograms, and exclusionary wording used in screening materials.

Slice 3: Education

This includes making patients aware that residual breast tissue remains intact following CCM, and that breast cancer continues to be a possibility. Additionally, physicians may need to be educated regarding CCM not being equivalent to prophylactic mastectomy. Holes for Slice 3 include a delay in seeking health care or screening opportunities due to a lack of knowledge regarding the continued cancer risk. Similarly, delayed diagnosis can occur in cases of physicians being unaware of the existence of residual breast tissue.

Slice 4: Participation in post-surgery follow-up visits

Post-surgery follow-up is important for both patients and health care professionals to facilitate a long-term relationship, especially given the lack of knowledge about breast cancer risk in trans men. This would increase the likelihood of early detection of symptoms, as well as facilitate data collection for epidemiological studies. Holes for Slice 4 include inadequate care that complicates both patient and physician education, thereby hindering a cohesive understanding of how patients experience treatments. Holes in both Slices 2 and 4 risk patients losing their opportunity to be screened, if needed.

Slice 5: Histopathologic examination of excised breast tissue

Given the lack of evidence-based guidelines for post-CCM trans men, guidelines used for RM in cis women should be employed until guidelines specifically for trans men have been developed. To maximize safety, all specimens should be examined when economically and practically feasible. Holes for Slice 5 include lower participation in breast cancer screening in trans men relative to cis women, which can result in late diagnosis of cancer.

Discussion

Breast cancer in trans men continues to be an issue of unknown magnitude. Assessing the risk of breast cancer in trans men relative to that in cis women requires a deeper understanding of different disease specifications in trans men, including the age at which breast cancer develops, the impact of CSH on breast cancer risk, the effect and possible harm of screening (timing and modalities), and the utility of histopathologic examination at the time of CCM.

Because evidence-based screening guidelines for trans men have not been developed, those used for cis women are employed, with consensus on their application limited to the preoperative status of trans men. Guidelines for screening trans men postoperation vary considerably (Table 3). No studies on specific screening modalities aimed at trans men currently exist, and it remains uncertain whether mammography, ultrasound, or MRI is best suited for these patients. Furthermore, no studies have determined whether histopathologic examinations should be performed following mastectomies.

Mammography is a successful breast cancer screening and diagnostic method for cis men [71]. However, the physiological differences that exist between trans men and cis women suggest that it may not be appropriate to simply apply the same screening and diagnostic guidelines for breast cancer for both patient groups. To address this, epidemiological studies on older trans men and powered to establish a lifetime risk of breast cancer in trans men are needed to justify screening programs. Additionally, breast cancer risk in trans men carrying oncogenic mutations should be investigated in order to establish specific guidelines for these subgroups.

Limitations

All studies included in this review are of low to very low quality, as such no certain conclusions regarding the epidemiology of breast cancer in trans men can be formulated. The systematic search in this review was limited in its scope to that of described breast cancer cases in trans men. Other aspects discussed have been reviewed thoroughly, but not in a structured manner. The study protocol was never published before the initiation of the study. Both of these limitations can introduce bias to the review. However, the impact of this bias towards the conclusions drawn in this review are considered to be limited since the conclusions are conservative, and a risk management approach is applied.

Conclusions

The findings of this review support the establishment of a risk-management approach to breast cancer in trans men. Trans men should be educated about the presence of residual breast tissue post-CCM and informed about the lack of evidence-based guidelines for breast cancer screening. Moreover, these patients should be offered a chance to participate in the decision-making process for breast cancer screening. Furthermore, based on previous findings, we suggest that histopathologic examinations should follow CCM in trans men as a breast cancer screening method. If this is not economically or practically feasible, the guidelines related to RM for cis women should be followed.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Excluded studies.

This table shows all studies excluded after full text review and states the reason behind exclusions. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) cases had to involve trans men, (2) breast cancer diagnosis needed to be preceded by a gender dysphoria-related intervention (either androgen therapy or a type of CCM), and/or (3) cases needed to involve invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) gender identity in the case subject was unclear and/or (2) a full English version of the report was unavailable.

(DOCX)

pone.0299333.s001.docx^{(25.6KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Detailed searchterms.

This table describes the search process as conducted on PubMed. The search was constructed through 7 steps. The combined and final search were as follows: ("breast cancer"[Text Word] OR "breast malignancy"[Text Word] OR "breast Neoplasms"[Text Word] OR "Breast carcinoma"[Text Word] OR ("breast"[Text Word] AND "carcinoma"[Text Word]) OR ("breast Neoplasms"[MeSH Terms] OR "carcinoma, ductal, breast"[MeSH Terms] OR "breast carcinoma in situ"[MeSH Terms])) AND ("transgender"[Text Word] OR "transgender male*"[Text Word] OR "female-to-male"[Text Word] OR "female-to-male"[Text Word] OR "transexual*"[Text Word] OR "trans man"[Text Word] OR "trans men"[Text Word] OR ("transgender persons*"[MeSH Terms] OR "transsexualism*"[MeSH Terms] OR "gender identity"[MeSH Terms])). The search was conducted on the 14^th of march 2023. It resulted in 374 hits.

(DOCX)

pone.0299333.s002.docx^{(16.4KB, docx)}

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R. L., Laversanne M., Soerjomataram I., Jemal A., et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;(3):209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Ferlay J EM, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Piñeros M, Znaor A, et al. Global cancer observatory: cancer today. International Agency for Research on Cancer [Internet], Lyon; 2020. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today [Cited; Januari 26, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
3.National Board of Health and Wellfare. Statistikdatabas för cancer. National Board of Health and Wellfare [Internet], Stockholm; 2019. Available from: https://sdb.socialstyrelsen.se/if_can/val.aspx [Cited; Januari 26, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
4.Reason J. Human error: models and management. Bmj 2000;320(7237):768–70, doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Page M. J., McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T. C., Mulrow C. D., et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj 2021;372:n71, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Guyatt G. H., Oxman A. D., Vist G. E., Kunz R., Falck-Ytter Y., Alonso-Coello P., et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj 2008;336(7650):924–6, doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Baker G. M., Guzman-Arocho Y. D., Bret-Mounet V. C., Torous V. F., Schnitt S. J., Tobias A. M., et al. Testosterone therapy and breast histopathological features in transgender individuals. Mod Pathol 2021;34(1):85–94: doi: 10.1038/s41379-020-00675-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Brown GR, Jones KT. Incidence of breast cancer in a cohort of 5,135 transgender veterans. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015;149(1):191–8, doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-3213-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.de Blok C J M, Wiepjes C M, Nota N M, van Engelen K, Adank M A, Dreijerink K M A, et al. Breast cancer risk in transgender people receiving hormone treatment: nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands. Bmj 2019;365:l1652, doi: 10.1136/bmj.l1652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Gooren L. J., van Trotsenburg M. A., Giltay E. J., & van Diest P. J. Breast cancer development in transsexual subjects receiving cross-sex hormone treatment. J Sex Med 2013;10(12):3129–34, doi: 10.1111/jsm.12319 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Van Renterghem S. M. J., Van Dorpe J., Monstrey S. J., Defreyne J., Claes K. E. Y., Praet M., et al. Routine histopathological examination after female-to-male gender-confirming mastectomy. Br J Surg 2018;105(7):885–892, doi: 10.1002/bjs.10794 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Barghouthi N, Turner J, Perini J. Breast cancer development in a transgender male receiving testosterone therapy. Case Rep Endocrinol 2018;2018:3652602, doi: 10.1155/2018/3652602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Burcombe RJ, Makris A, Pittam M, Finer N. Breast cancer after bilateral subcutaneous mastectomy in a female-to-male trans-sexual. Breast 2003;12(4):290–3, doi: 10.1016/s0960-9776(03)00033-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Chotai N., Tang S., Lim H., Lu S. Breast cancer in a female to male transgender patient 20 years post-mastectomy: Issues to consider. Breast J 2019;25(6):1066–1070, doi: 10.1111/tbj.13417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Eismann J., Heng Y. J., Fleischmann-Rose K., Tobias A. M., Phillips J., Wulf G. M., et al. Interdisciplinary management of transgender individuals at risk for breast cancer: case reports and review of the literature. Clin Breast Cancer 2019;19(1):e12–e19, doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.11.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Fehl A., Ferrari S., Wecht Z., Rosenzweig M. Breast cancer in the transgender population. J Adv Pract Oncol 2019;10(4):387–394, doi: 10.6004/jadpro.2019.10.4.6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Fledderus A. C., Gout H. A., Ogilvie A. C.,van Loenen D. K.G. Breast malignancy in female-to-male transsexuals: systematic review, case report, and recommendations for screening. Breast 2020;53(92–100, doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.06.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Fundytus A., Saad N., Logie N., Roldan Urgoiti G. Breast cancer in transgender female-to-male individuals: A case report of androgen receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast J 2020;26(5):1007–1012, doi: 10.1111/tbj.13655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Gooren L., Bowers M., Lips P., & Konings I. R. Five new cases of breast cancer in transsexual persons. Andrologia 2015;47(10):1202–1205, doi: 10.1111/and.12399 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Katayama Y., Motoki T., Watanabe S., Miho S., Kimata Y., Matsuoka J, et al. A very rare case of breast cancer in a female-to-male transsexual. Breast Cancer 2016;23(6):939–944, doi: 10.1007/s12282-015-0661-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Kopetti C., Schaffer C., Zaman K., Liapi A., di Summa P. G., Bauquis O. Invasive breast cancer in a trans man after bilateral mastectomy: case report and literature review. Clin Breast Cancer 2021;21(3):e154–e157, doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2020.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Light M., McFarlane T., Ives A., Shah B., Lim E., Grossmann M., et al. Testosterone therapy considerations in oestrogen, progesterone and androgen receptor-positive breast cancer in a transgender man. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2020;93(3):355–357, doi: 10.1111/cen.14263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Mingrino J, Wang Y. Apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ associated with testosterone therapy in a transgender individual. Breast J 2021;27(5):475–477, doi: 10.1111/tbj.14187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Nikolic D. V., Djordjevic M. L., Granic M., Nikolic A. T., Stanimirovic V. V., Zdravkovic D., et al. Importance of revealing a rare case of breast cancer in a female to male transsexual after bilateral mastectomy. World J Surg Oncol 2012;10:280, doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-10-280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Parmeshwar N, Alcon A, Kim EA. A dual-surgeon approach to breast cancer surgery in a transmale. Ann Plast Surg 2021;87(6):633–638, doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002733 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Shao T, Grossbard ML, Klein P. Breast cancer in female-to-male transsexuals: two cases with a review of physiology and management. Clin Breast Cancer 2011;11(6):417–419, doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2011.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Tanini S., Fisher A. D., Meattini I., Bianchi S., Ristori J., Maggi M., et al. Testosterone and breast cancer in transmen: case reports, review of the literature, and clinical observation. Clin Breast Cancer 2019;19(2):e271–e275, doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Treskova I, Hes O, Bursa V. Long-term hormonal therapy resulting in breast cancer in female-to-male transsexual: Case report. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97(52):e13653, doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013653 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Heer E., Harper A., Escandor N., Sung H., McCormack V., Fidler-Benaoudia M. M. Global burden and trends in premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer: a population-based study. The Lancet Global health 2020;8(8):e1027–e1037, doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30215-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Stone JP, Hartley RL, Temple-Oberle C. Breast cancer in transgender patients: a systematic review. Part 2: Female to male. Eur J Surg Oncol 2018;44(10):1463–1468, doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.06.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Ray A., Fernstrum A., Mahran A., Thirumavalavan N. Testosterone therapy and risk of breast cancer development: a systematic review. Curr Opin Urol 2020;30(3):340–348, doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000763 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Anderson W. F., Althuis M. D., Brinton L. A., & Devesa S. S. Is male breast cancer similar or different than female breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004;83(1):77–86, doi: 10.1023/B:BREA.0000010701.08825.2d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.World Health Organization. WHO Position paper on mammography screening. World Health Organization, Geneva; 2014. ISBN: 978 92 4 150793 6 [Google Scholar]
34.National Board of Health and Wellfare. Screening för br¶stcancer. National Board of Health and Wellfare, Stockholm; 2014. Article nr 2014-2-32. [Google Scholar]
35.Regionala cancercentrum i samverkan. Bröstcancer—Nationellt vårdprogram. Regionala Cancercentrum i Samverkan, Stockholm; 2023. [Google Scholar]
36.Bourns A. Guidelines for gender-affirming primary care with trans and non-binary patients. Rainbow Health Ontario, Toronto; 2019. [Google Scholar]
37.Deutsch MB. Breast cancer screening in transgender men. University of California [Internet], San francisco; 2016. Available from: https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/breast-cancer-men [Cited; April 21, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
38.Feldman JL and Goldberg J. Transgender primary medical care: Suggested guidelines for clinicians in british columbia. Transcend Transgender Support & Education Society and Vancouver Coastal Health’s Transgender Health Program, Vancouver; 2006. [Google Scholar]
39.Harvey J. Makadon KHM, Jennifer Potter et al. Medical and surgical management of the transgender patient: What the primary care clinician needs to know. In: The Fenway guide to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender health. American College of Physicians: United States of America; 2015; pp. 486–487. [Google Scholar]
40.University Hospitals. Transgender Breast Cancer Screenings. University Hospitals [Internet], Cleveland; 2018. Available from: https://www.uhhospitals.org/services/cancer-services/breast-cancer/transgender-breast-screenings [Cited; January 01, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
41.NHS Inform. Screening information for the transgender community. NHS Inform [Internet], Glasgow; 2021. Available from: https://www.nhsinform.scot/healthy-living/screening/screening-information-for-the-transgender-community#breast-screening [Cited; April 21, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
42.Susan G. Komen®. Breast health toolkit for health care providers caring for the LGBTQ Community. Susan G. Komen [Internet], Dallas; 2019. Available from: https://www.komen.org/wp-content/uploads/Breast-Health-Toolkit-for-hcps-Final-2019.pdf [Cited; April 26, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
43.Cancercare Manitoba. Cancer screening recommendations for trans women and men. CancerCare Manitoba [Internet], Winnipeg; n.d. Available from: https://www.cancercare.mb.ca/screening/trans [Cited; April 04, 2021].
44.Canadian Cancer Society. Trans men and chest cancer screening. Canadian Cancer Society [Internet], Toronto; n.d. Available from: https://www.cancer.ca/en/prevention-and-screening/reduce-cancer-risk/find-cancer-early/screening-in-lgbtq-communities/trans-men-and-chest-cancer-screening/?region=on [Cited; January 31, 2021].
45.Cancer research UK. I’m trans or non-binary, does this affect my cancer screening? Cancer research UK [Internet], London; 2019. Available from: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/screening/trans-and-non-binary-cancer-screening#screening30 [Cited; April 21, 2021]. [Google Scholar]
46.Breastscreen Victoria. Breast/chest screening for TGD people. Breastscreen Victoria [Internet], Melbourne; n.d. Available from: https://www.breastscreen.org.au/community-support/trans-and-gender-diverse-people/ [Cited; April 21, 2021].
47.Roznovjak D, Petroll A, Cortina S, C. Breast cancer risk and screening in transgender individuals. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2021;13(10):1–6; doi: 10.1007/s12609-020-00403-x34322193 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
48.Meggetto O., Peirson L., Yakubu M., Farid-Kapadia M., Costa-Fagbemi M., Baidoobonso S., et al. Breast cancer risk and breast screening for trans people: an integration of 3 systematic reviews. CMAJ Open 2019;7(3):e598–e609, doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20180028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Iwuagwu OC, Platt AJ, Drew PJ. Breast reduction surgery in the UK and Ireland—current trends. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2006;88(6):585–8, doi: 10.1308/003588406X130598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Sears E. D., Lu Y. T., Chung T. T., Momoh A. O., Chung K. C. Pathology evaluation of reduction mammaplasty specimens and subsequent diagnosis of malignant breast disease: A claims-based analysis. World J Surg 2019;43(6):1546–1553, doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-04931-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Ambaye A. B., Goodwin A. J., MacLennan S. E., Naud S., Weaver D. L. Recommendations for pathologic evaluation of reduction mammoplasty specimens: A prospective study with systematic tissue sampling. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2017;141(11):1523–1528, doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0492-OA [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Hassan FE, Pacifico MD. Should we be analysing breast reduction specimens? A systematic analysis of over 1,000 consecutive cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012;36(5):1105–1113, doi: 10.1007/s00266-012-9919-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Merkkola-von Schantz P., Jahkola T., Carpelan A., Krogerus L., Hukkinen K., Kauhanen S. Adverse histopathology and imaging findings in reduction mammaplasty day-surgery patients. Scand J Surg 2014;103(3):209–214, doi: 10.1177/1457496913512828 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Liebmann R and Varma M. Best practice recommendations: Histopathology and cytopathology of limited or no clinical value. The Royal College of Pathologists, London; 2019. Document nr: G177. [Google Scholar]
55.American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline: reduction mammaplasty. American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Arlington Heights; 2011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting. Bröstreduktionsplastik—bröstförminskande kirurgi vid stor byst. Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting, Stockholm; 2008. [Google Scholar]
57.Salibian A. A., Axelrod D. M., Smith J. A., Fischer B. A., Agarwal C., & Bluebond-Langner R. Oncologic considerations for safe gender-affirming mastectomy: Preoperative imaging, pathologic evaluation, counseling, and long-term screening. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;147(2):213e–221e, doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007589 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Hernandez A., Schwartz C. J., Warfield D., Thomas K. M., Bluebond-Langner R., Ozerdem U., et al. Pathologic evaluation of breast tissue from transmasculine individuals undergoing gender-affirming chest masculinization. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2020;144(7):888–893, doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0316-OA [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Kiran T., Davie S., Singh D., Hranilovic S., Pinto A. D., Abramovich A., et al. Cancer screening rates among transgender adults: Cross-sectional analysis of primary care data. Can Fam Physician 2019;65(1):e30–e37 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Selvaggi G. Mastectomy in Trans Men. In: Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery of the Male Breast. (Cordova A, Innocenti A, Toia F, et al. eds.) Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2020; pp. 161–170. [Google Scholar]
61.Goldman LD, Goldwyn RM. Some anatomical considerations of subcutaneous mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1973;51(5):501–5, doi: 10.1097/00006534-197305000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Veith JP, Goodwin IA, Magno-Padron D, Panushka KA, Willcockson JR, Garlick JW, et al. Current practices in pathologic assessment of breast tissue in female-to-male transgender top surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8(7 Suppl):3–3, doi: 10.1097/01.GOX.0000695992.36368.f9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
63.Boice J. D. Jr, Persson I., Brinton L. A., Hober M., McLaughlin J. K., Blot W. J., et al. Breast cancer following breast reduction surgery in Sweden. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106(4):755–62, doi: 10.1097/00006534-200009040-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Kaaks R., Tikk K., Sookthai D., Schock H., Johnson T., Tjønneland A., et al. Premenopausal serum sex hormone levels in relation to breast cancer risk, overall and by hormone receptor status—results from the EPIC cohort. Int J Cancer 2014;134(8):1947–57, doi: 10.1002/ijc.28528 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65.Liao DJ, Dickson RB. Roles of androgens in the development, growth, and carcinogenesis of the mammary gland. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2002;80(2):175–189, doi: 10.1016/s0960-0760(01)00185-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66.Secreto G, Girombelli A, Krogh V. Androgen excess in breast cancer development: implications for prevention and treatment. Endocr Relat Cancer 2019;26(2):R81–r94, doi: 10.1530/ERC-18-0429 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Key T., Appleby P., Barnes I., Reeves G. Endogenous sex hormones and breast cancer in postmenopausal women: reanalysis of nine prospective studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(8):606–616, doi: 10.1093/jnci/94.8.606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68.Key T. J., Appleby P. N., Reeves G. K., Travis R. C., Brinton L. A., Helzlsouer K. J., et al. Steroid hormone measurements from different types of assays in relation to body mass index and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women: Reanalysis of eighteen prospective studies. Steroids 2015;99(Pt A):49–55, doi: 10.1016/j.steroids.2014.09.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69.Safer J. D., & Tangpricha V. Care of Transgender Persons. The New England journal of medicine, 2019,381(25):2451–2460. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp1903650 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70.Chan K. J., Jolly D., Liang J. J., Weinand J. D., Safer J. D. Estrogen levels do not rise with testosterone treatment for transgender men. Endocr Pract 2018;24(4):329–333, doi: 10.4158/EP-2017-0203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Gao Y., Goldberg J. E., Young T. K., Babb J. S., Moy L., Heller S. L. Breast cancer screening in high-risk men: A 12-year longitudinal observational study of male breast imaging utilization and outcomes. Radiology 2019;293(2):282–291, doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190971 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast Cancer. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Philadelphia: 2021. Version 4. [Google Scholar]
73.Kim H., Kang B. J., Kim S. H., Kim H. S., Cha E. S. What we should know in mammography after reduction mammoplasty and mastopexy? Breast Cancer 2015;22(4):391–8, doi: 10.1007/s12282-013-0494-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74.Torous VF, Schnitt SJ. Histopathologic findings in breast surgical specimens from patients undergoing female-to-male gender reassignment surgery. Mod Pathol 2019;32(3):346–353, doi: 10.1038/s41379-018-0117-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75.East E. G., Gast K. M., Kuzon W. M. Jr, Roberts E., Zhao L., & Jorns J. M. Clinicopathological findings in female-to-male gender-affirming breast surgery. Histopathology 2017;71(6):859–865, doi: 10.1111/his.13299 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Grynberg M., Fanchin R., Dubost G., Colau J. C., Brémont-Weil C., Frydman R., et al. Histology of genital tract and breast tissue after long-term testosterone administration in a female-to-male transsexual population. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;20(4):553–558, doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.12.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77.Slagter M. H., Gooren L. J., Scorilas A., Petraki C. D., & Diamandis E. P. Effects of long-term androgen administration on breast tissue of female-to-male transsexuals. J Histochem Cytochem 2006;54(8):905–910, doi: 10.1369/jhc.6A6928.2006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78.D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology; 2013 [Google Scholar]
79.Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012;380(9855):1778–1786, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80.Berrington de González A. Estimates of the potential risk of radiation-related cancer from screening in the UK. J Med Screen 2011;18(4):163–164, doi: 10.1258/jms.2011.011073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81.Reed B, Rhodes S, Schofield P, Wylie K. Gender variance in the UK: Prevalence, incidence, growth and geographic distribution. Gender identity and education society: Leatherhead; 2009. [Google Scholar]
82.Su M., Huynh V., Bronsert M., Su E., Goode J., Lock A., et al. Longitudinal Risk Management for Patients with Increased Risk for Breast Cancer. J Surg Res 2021;266(421–429, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299333.r001

Decision Letter 0

Daniele Ugo Tari

8 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-41281Aspects to consider regarding breast cancer risk in trans men: a literature review and risk management approach.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wahlström,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daniele Ugo Tari, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Kindly add "systematic review" to the title of your manuscript

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In general, this was an important review, although based on poor-quality research. There are a few corrections that need to be made to clarify the review.

- Beginning with the Abstract, the Swiss chess model is mentioned a number of times, but never explained at all until near the end in the Risk Management section. A concise explanation of the model is needed at the beginning. There are also two words in the Abstract that need correcting - in Methods, "the diagnosis of breast had" the word "cancer" needs to be added. Near the end of the same paragraph, "aspects in this populous" needs to be corrected to "population."

- In Materials and methods in Search methodology, "GD-related intervention" is used. Please define and spell out what GD stands for.

- In Comparison and applicability, in the second paragraph, "CSH is an obvious..." Please define and spell out CSH.

- In the Introduction, it is stated that the highest incidence of breast cancer is found in women aged 70 - 74 years. However, after checking the reference, this is very likely true only for Sweden; please verify that it is broadly applicable or clarify that this is only for Sweden.

- It is curious that only the first author screened all articles, read all text, and gathered all statistics. There was no double-check by the other authors (what exactly did they do?) and is a risk of bias. It is also curious that no protocol was established and the review has not been registered anywhere.

- Although the author is undoubtedly correct that there is more breast tissue remaining after CCM than after prophylactic mastectomy, it should still somewhat lower the risk of malignancy in trans men than in cis women at normal risk.

Reviewer #2: In the references section, this reviewer noticed two typographical errors:

Line 602, San Francisco is misspelled ("San fransisco" is incorrect)

Line 604, the second author on the cited document is Goldberg, J (not Joshua G)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0299333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299333.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

16 Jan 2024

Response to editor: 1: Format and style of the manuscript have been updated to adhere to guidelines.

2: Systematic review was added to the title.

3: The reference list have been reviewed. Reference nr 69 was changed beacuse of a published erratum concerning the original citation.

Response to Reviewers

First, the authors would like to thank the reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing this manuscript. Many valid and thoughtful points have been raised. Our responses can be found beneath.

Reviewer #1: In general, this was an important review, although based on poor-quality research. There are a few corrections that need to be made to clarify the review.

Response: A paragraph with the heading “Risk analysis” have been added to the materials and methods section explaining the swiss cheese model. The word cancer was added as suggested, populous were changed to population as well.

#2 - In Materials and methods in Search methodology, "GD-related intervention" is used. Please define and spell out what GD stands for.

Response: GD is defined as gender dysphoria in the second paragraph of the introduction.

#3 - In Comparison and applicability, in the second paragraph, "CSH is an obvious..." Please define and spell out CSH.

Response: CSH is mentioned and defined earlier in the manuscript in the last paragraph in “Cases of breast cancer in trans men”. However, we spelled it out again.

#4- In the Introduction, it is stated that the highest incidence of breast cancer is found in women aged 70 - 74 years. However, after checking the reference, this is very likely true only for Sweden; please verify that it is broadly applicable or clarify that this is only for Sweden.

Response: Yes, great point. We´ve changed the sentence to “For the Swedish population the highest incidence is found in women aged 70 to 74 years.3”

#5 - It is curious that only the first author screened all articles, read all text, and gathered all statistics. There was no double-check by the other authors (what exactly did they do?) and is a risk of bias. It is also curious that no protocol was established, and the review has not been registered anywhere.

Response: The inclusion/exclusion process were being conducted by the first author with supervision from the third author. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were clearly stated before initiation of the search. The population were also clearly defined as trans men having had some form of gender dysphoric intervention made. These criteria were strictly followed and no evident issues with inclusion/exclusion were found. In those cases, the third author would be available for discussion. The process was especially straight forward with regards to title and abstract screening. For transparency we provide all excluded articles from the full-text screening in the S1 table, with reasons for exclusions.

Whilst no formal protocol was produced as a separate document before initiating the study, the search was clearly defined beforehand using the PICO approach. The problem/population = breast cancer in trans men. The intervention/risk = GD intervention. Comparison = cis women/trans men with no GD intervention. Outcome = breast cancer case. It is unfortunate that the study was not registered prospectively, as this could help to avoid future “unplanned duplication reviews”. However, we do not consider this fact to introduce any major bias since we´ve made effort to report on the search terms/methodology as transparent as possible to facilitate reproducibility.

#6- Although the author is undoubtedly correct that there is more breast tissue remaining after CCM than after prophylactic mastectomy, it should still somewhat lower the risk of malignancy in trans men than in cis women at normal risk.

Response: Yes, the CCM alone is probably risk-reducing and we cite Boice (reference nr 63) who shows that a breast reduction in cis women leads to a lower incidence in breast cancer. This is most likely true also for trans men. However, to what degree is impossible to say given the available evidence.

Reviewer #2: In the references section, this reviewer noticed two typographical errors:

#1 Line 602, San Francisco is misspelled ("San fransisco" is incorrect)

Response: Corrected.

#2 Line 604, the second author on the cited document is Goldberg, J (not Joshua G)

Response: Yes, thanks for noticing. Corrected.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0299333.s003.docx^{(16.8KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299333.r003

Decision Letter 1

Daniele Ugo Tari

9 Feb 2024

Aspects to consider regarding breast cancer risk in trans men: a systematic review and risk management approach.

PONE-D-23-41281R1

Dear Dr. Wahlström,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Daniele Ugo Tari, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299333.r004

Acceptance letter

Daniele Ugo Tari

26 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-41281R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wahlström,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Daniele Ugo Tari

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Table. Excluded studies.

(DOCX)

pone.0299333.s001.docx^{(25.6KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Detailed searchterms.

(DOCX)

pone.0299333.s002.docx^{(16.4KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0299333.s003.docx^{(16.8KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0299333.ref001] 1.Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R. L., Laversanne M., Soerjomataram I., Jemal A., et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;(3):209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref002] 2.Ferlay J EM, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Piñeros M, Znaor A, et al. Global cancer observatory: cancer today. International Agency for Research on Cancer [Internet], Lyon; 2020. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today [Cited; Januari 26, 2021]. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref003] 3.National Board of Health and Wellfare. Statistikdatabas för cancer. National Board of Health and Wellfare [Internet], Stockholm; 2019. Available from: https://sdb.socialstyrelsen.se/if_can/val.aspx [Cited; Januari 26, 2021]. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref004] 4.Reason J. Human error: models and management. Bmj 2000;320(7237):768–70, doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref005] 5.Page M. J., McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T. C., Mulrow C. D., et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj 2021;372:n71, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref006] 6.Guyatt G. H., Oxman A. D., Vist G. E., Kunz R., Falck-Ytter Y., Alonso-Coello P., et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj 2008;336(7650):924–6, doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref007] 7.Baker G. M., Guzman-Arocho Y. D., Bret-Mounet V. C., Torous V. F., Schnitt S. J., Tobias A. M., et al. Testosterone therapy and breast histopathological features in transgender individuals. Mod Pathol 2021;34(1):85–94: doi: 10.1038/s41379-020-00675-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref008] 8.Brown GR, Jones KT. Incidence of breast cancer in a cohort of 5,135 transgender veterans. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015;149(1):191–8, doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-3213-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref009] 9.de Blok C J M, Wiepjes C M, Nota N M, van Engelen K, Adank M A, Dreijerink K M A, et al. Breast cancer risk in transgender people receiving hormone treatment: nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands. Bmj 2019;365:l1652, doi: 10.1136/bmj.l1652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref010] 10.Gooren L. J., van Trotsenburg M. A., Giltay E. J., & van Diest P. J. Breast cancer development in transsexual subjects receiving cross-sex hormone treatment. J Sex Med 2013;10(12):3129–34, doi: 10.1111/jsm.12319 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref011] 11.Van Renterghem S. M. J., Van Dorpe J., Monstrey S. J., Defreyne J., Claes K. E. Y., Praet M., et al. Routine histopathological examination after female-to-male gender-confirming mastectomy. Br J Surg 2018;105(7):885–892, doi: 10.1002/bjs.10794 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref012] 12.Barghouthi N, Turner J, Perini J. Breast cancer development in a transgender male receiving testosterone therapy. Case Rep Endocrinol 2018;2018:3652602, doi: 10.1155/2018/3652602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref013] 13.Burcombe RJ, Makris A, Pittam M, Finer N. Breast cancer after bilateral subcutaneous mastectomy in a female-to-male trans-sexual. Breast 2003;12(4):290–3, doi: 10.1016/s0960-9776(03)00033-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref014] 14.Chotai N., Tang S., Lim H., Lu S. Breast cancer in a female to male transgender patient 20 years post-mastectomy: Issues to consider. Breast J 2019;25(6):1066–1070, doi: 10.1111/tbj.13417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref015] 15.Eismann J., Heng Y. J., Fleischmann-Rose K., Tobias A. M., Phillips J., Wulf G. M., et al. Interdisciplinary management of transgender individuals at risk for breast cancer: case reports and review of the literature. Clin Breast Cancer 2019;19(1):e12–e19, doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.11.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref016] 16.Fehl A., Ferrari S., Wecht Z., Rosenzweig M. Breast cancer in the transgender population. J Adv Pract Oncol 2019;10(4):387–394, doi: 10.6004/jadpro.2019.10.4.6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref017] 17.Fledderus A. C., Gout H. A., Ogilvie A. C.,van Loenen D. K.G. Breast malignancy in female-to-male transsexuals: systematic review, case report, and recommendations for screening. Breast 2020;53(92–100, doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.06.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref018] 18.Fundytus A., Saad N., Logie N., Roldan Urgoiti G. Breast cancer in transgender female-to-male individuals: A case report of androgen receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast J 2020;26(5):1007–1012, doi: 10.1111/tbj.13655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref019] 19.Gooren L., Bowers M., Lips P., & Konings I. R. Five new cases of breast cancer in transsexual persons. Andrologia 2015;47(10):1202–1205, doi: 10.1111/and.12399 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref020] 20.Katayama Y., Motoki T., Watanabe S., Miho S., Kimata Y., Matsuoka J, et al. A very rare case of breast cancer in a female-to-male transsexual. Breast Cancer 2016;23(6):939–944, doi: 10.1007/s12282-015-0661-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref021] 21.Kopetti C., Schaffer C., Zaman K., Liapi A., di Summa P. G., Bauquis O. Invasive breast cancer in a trans man after bilateral mastectomy: case report and literature review. Clin Breast Cancer 2021;21(3):e154–e157, doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2020.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref022] 22.Light M., McFarlane T., Ives A., Shah B., Lim E., Grossmann M., et al. Testosterone therapy considerations in oestrogen, progesterone and androgen receptor-positive breast cancer in a transgender man. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2020;93(3):355–357, doi: 10.1111/cen.14263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref023] 23.Mingrino J, Wang Y. Apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ associated with testosterone therapy in a transgender individual. Breast J 2021;27(5):475–477, doi: 10.1111/tbj.14187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref024] 24.Nikolic D. V., Djordjevic M. L., Granic M., Nikolic A. T., Stanimirovic V. V., Zdravkovic D., et al. Importance of revealing a rare case of breast cancer in a female to male transsexual after bilateral mastectomy. World J Surg Oncol 2012;10:280, doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-10-280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref025] 25.Parmeshwar N, Alcon A, Kim EA. A dual-surgeon approach to breast cancer surgery in a transmale. Ann Plast Surg 2021;87(6):633–638, doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002733 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref026] 26.Shao T, Grossbard ML, Klein P. Breast cancer in female-to-male transsexuals: two cases with a review of physiology and management. Clin Breast Cancer 2011;11(6):417–419, doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2011.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref027] 27.Tanini S., Fisher A. D., Meattini I., Bianchi S., Ristori J., Maggi M., et al. Testosterone and breast cancer in transmen: case reports, review of the literature, and clinical observation. Clin Breast Cancer 2019;19(2):e271–e275, doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref028] 28.Treskova I, Hes O, Bursa V. Long-term hormonal therapy resulting in breast cancer in female-to-male transsexual: Case report. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97(52):e13653, doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013653 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref029] 29.Heer E., Harper A., Escandor N., Sung H., McCormack V., Fidler-Benaoudia M. M. Global burden and trends in premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer: a population-based study. The Lancet Global health 2020;8(8):e1027–e1037, doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30215-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref030] 30.Stone JP, Hartley RL, Temple-Oberle C. Breast cancer in transgender patients: a systematic review. Part 2: Female to male. Eur J Surg Oncol 2018;44(10):1463–1468, doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.06.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref031] 31.Ray A., Fernstrum A., Mahran A., Thirumavalavan N. Testosterone therapy and risk of breast cancer development: a systematic review. Curr Opin Urol 2020;30(3):340–348, doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000763 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref032] 32.Anderson W. F., Althuis M. D., Brinton L. A., & Devesa S. S. Is male breast cancer similar or different than female breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004;83(1):77–86, doi: 10.1023/B:BREA.0000010701.08825.2d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref033] 33.World Health Organization. WHO Position paper on mammography screening. World Health Organization, Geneva; 2014. ISBN: 978 92 4 150793 6 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref034] 34.National Board of Health and Wellfare. Screening för br¶stcancer. National Board of Health and Wellfare, Stockholm; 2014. Article nr 2014-2-32. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref035] 35.Regionala cancercentrum i samverkan. Bröstcancer—Nationellt vårdprogram. Regionala Cancercentrum i Samverkan, Stockholm; 2023. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref036] 36.Bourns A. Guidelines for gender-affirming primary care with trans and non-binary patients. Rainbow Health Ontario, Toronto; 2019. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref037] 37.Deutsch MB. Breast cancer screening in transgender men. University of California [Internet], San francisco; 2016. Available from: https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/breast-cancer-men [Cited; April 21, 2021]. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref038] 38.Feldman JL and Goldberg J. Transgender primary medical care: Suggested guidelines for clinicians in british columbia. Transcend Transgender Support & Education Society and Vancouver Coastal Health’s Transgender Health Program, Vancouver; 2006. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref039] 39.Harvey J. Makadon KHM, Jennifer Potter et al. Medical and surgical management of the transgender patient: What the primary care clinician needs to know. In: The Fenway guide to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender health. American College of Physicians: United States of America; 2015; pp. 486–487. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref040] 40.University Hospitals. Transgender Breast Cancer Screenings. University Hospitals [Internet], Cleveland; 2018. Available from: https://www.uhhospitals.org/services/cancer-services/breast-cancer/transgender-breast-screenings [Cited; January 01, 2021]. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref041] 41.NHS Inform. Screening information for the transgender community. NHS Inform [Internet], Glasgow; 2021. Available from: https://www.nhsinform.scot/healthy-living/screening/screening-information-for-the-transgender-community#breast-screening [Cited; April 21, 2021]. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref042] 42.Susan G. Komen®. Breast health toolkit for health care providers caring for the LGBTQ Community. Susan G. Komen [Internet], Dallas; 2019. Available from: https://www.komen.org/wp-content/uploads/Breast-Health-Toolkit-for-hcps-Final-2019.pdf [Cited; April 26, 2021]. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref043] 43.Cancercare Manitoba. Cancer screening recommendations for trans women and men. CancerCare Manitoba [Internet], Winnipeg; n.d. Available from: https://www.cancercare.mb.ca/screening/trans [Cited; April 04, 2021].

[pone.0299333.ref044] 44.Canadian Cancer Society. Trans men and chest cancer screening. Canadian Cancer Society [Internet], Toronto; n.d. Available from: https://www.cancer.ca/en/prevention-and-screening/reduce-cancer-risk/find-cancer-early/screening-in-lgbtq-communities/trans-men-and-chest-cancer-screening/?region=on [Cited; January 31, 2021].

[pone.0299333.ref045] 45.Cancer research UK. I’m trans or non-binary, does this affect my cancer screening? Cancer research UK [Internet], London; 2019. Available from: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/screening/trans-and-non-binary-cancer-screening#screening30 [Cited; April 21, 2021]. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref046] 46.Breastscreen Victoria. Breast/chest screening for TGD people. Breastscreen Victoria [Internet], Melbourne; n.d. Available from: https://www.breastscreen.org.au/community-support/trans-and-gender-diverse-people/ [Cited; April 21, 2021].

[pone.0299333.ref047] 47.Roznovjak D, Petroll A, Cortina S, C. Breast cancer risk and screening in transgender individuals. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2021;13(10):1–6; doi: 10.1007/s12609-020-00403-x34322193 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref048] 48.Meggetto O., Peirson L., Yakubu M., Farid-Kapadia M., Costa-Fagbemi M., Baidoobonso S., et al. Breast cancer risk and breast screening for trans people: an integration of 3 systematic reviews. CMAJ Open 2019;7(3):e598–e609, doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20180028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref049] 49.Iwuagwu OC, Platt AJ, Drew PJ. Breast reduction surgery in the UK and Ireland—current trends. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2006;88(6):585–8, doi: 10.1308/003588406X130598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref050] 50.Sears E. D., Lu Y. T., Chung T. T., Momoh A. O., Chung K. C. Pathology evaluation of reduction mammaplasty specimens and subsequent diagnosis of malignant breast disease: A claims-based analysis. World J Surg 2019;43(6):1546–1553, doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-04931-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref051] 51.Ambaye A. B., Goodwin A. J., MacLennan S. E., Naud S., Weaver D. L. Recommendations for pathologic evaluation of reduction mammoplasty specimens: A prospective study with systematic tissue sampling. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2017;141(11):1523–1528, doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0492-OA [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref052] 52.Hassan FE, Pacifico MD. Should we be analysing breast reduction specimens? A systematic analysis of over 1,000 consecutive cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012;36(5):1105–1113, doi: 10.1007/s00266-012-9919-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref053] 53.Merkkola-von Schantz P., Jahkola T., Carpelan A., Krogerus L., Hukkinen K., Kauhanen S. Adverse histopathology and imaging findings in reduction mammaplasty day-surgery patients. Scand J Surg 2014;103(3):209–214, doi: 10.1177/1457496913512828 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref054] 54.Liebmann R and Varma M. Best practice recommendations: Histopathology and cytopathology of limited or no clinical value. The Royal College of Pathologists, London; 2019. Document nr: G177. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref055] 55.American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline: reduction mammaplasty. American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Arlington Heights; 2011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref056] 56.Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting. Bröstreduktionsplastik—bröstförminskande kirurgi vid stor byst. Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting, Stockholm; 2008. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref057] 57.Salibian A. A., Axelrod D. M., Smith J. A., Fischer B. A., Agarwal C., & Bluebond-Langner R. Oncologic considerations for safe gender-affirming mastectomy: Preoperative imaging, pathologic evaluation, counseling, and long-term screening. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;147(2):213e–221e, doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007589 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref058] 58.Hernandez A., Schwartz C. J., Warfield D., Thomas K. M., Bluebond-Langner R., Ozerdem U., et al. Pathologic evaluation of breast tissue from transmasculine individuals undergoing gender-affirming chest masculinization. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2020;144(7):888–893, doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0316-OA [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref059] 59.Kiran T., Davie S., Singh D., Hranilovic S., Pinto A. D., Abramovich A., et al. Cancer screening rates among transgender adults: Cross-sectional analysis of primary care data. Can Fam Physician 2019;65(1):e30–e37 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref060] 60.Selvaggi G. Mastectomy in Trans Men. In: Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery of the Male Breast. (Cordova A, Innocenti A, Toia F, et al. eds.) Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2020; pp. 161–170. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref061] 61.Goldman LD, Goldwyn RM. Some anatomical considerations of subcutaneous mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1973;51(5):501–5, doi: 10.1097/00006534-197305000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref062] 62.Veith JP, Goodwin IA, Magno-Padron D, Panushka KA, Willcockson JR, Garlick JW, et al. Current practices in pathologic assessment of breast tissue in female-to-male transgender top surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8(7 Suppl):3–3, doi: 10.1097/01.GOX.0000695992.36368.f9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref063] 63.Boice J. D. Jr, Persson I., Brinton L. A., Hober M., McLaughlin J. K., Blot W. J., et al. Breast cancer following breast reduction surgery in Sweden. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106(4):755–62, doi: 10.1097/00006534-200009040-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref064] 64.Kaaks R., Tikk K., Sookthai D., Schock H., Johnson T., Tjønneland A., et al. Premenopausal serum sex hormone levels in relation to breast cancer risk, overall and by hormone receptor status—results from the EPIC cohort. Int J Cancer 2014;134(8):1947–57, doi: 10.1002/ijc.28528 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref065] 65.Liao DJ, Dickson RB. Roles of androgens in the development, growth, and carcinogenesis of the mammary gland. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2002;80(2):175–189, doi: 10.1016/s0960-0760(01)00185-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref066] 66.Secreto G, Girombelli A, Krogh V. Androgen excess in breast cancer development: implications for prevention and treatment. Endocr Relat Cancer 2019;26(2):R81–r94, doi: 10.1530/ERC-18-0429 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref067] 67.Key T., Appleby P., Barnes I., Reeves G. Endogenous sex hormones and breast cancer in postmenopausal women: reanalysis of nine prospective studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(8):606–616, doi: 10.1093/jnci/94.8.606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref068] 68.Key T. J., Appleby P. N., Reeves G. K., Travis R. C., Brinton L. A., Helzlsouer K. J., et al. Steroid hormone measurements from different types of assays in relation to body mass index and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women: Reanalysis of eighteen prospective studies. Steroids 2015;99(Pt A):49–55, doi: 10.1016/j.steroids.2014.09.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref069] 69.Safer J. D., & Tangpricha V. Care of Transgender Persons. The New England journal of medicine, 2019,381(25):2451–2460. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp1903650 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref070] 70.Chan K. J., Jolly D., Liang J. J., Weinand J. D., Safer J. D. Estrogen levels do not rise with testosterone treatment for transgender men. Endocr Pract 2018;24(4):329–333, doi: 10.4158/EP-2017-0203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref071] 71.Gao Y., Goldberg J. E., Young T. K., Babb J. S., Moy L., Heller S. L. Breast cancer screening in high-risk men: A 12-year longitudinal observational study of male breast imaging utilization and outcomes. Radiology 2019;293(2):282–291, doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190971 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref072] 72.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast Cancer. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Philadelphia: 2021. Version 4. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref073] 73.Kim H., Kang B. J., Kim S. H., Kim H. S., Cha E. S. What we should know in mammography after reduction mammoplasty and mastopexy? Breast Cancer 2015;22(4):391–8, doi: 10.1007/s12282-013-0494-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref074] 74.Torous VF, Schnitt SJ. Histopathologic findings in breast surgical specimens from patients undergoing female-to-male gender reassignment surgery. Mod Pathol 2019;32(3):346–353, doi: 10.1038/s41379-018-0117-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref075] 75.East E. G., Gast K. M., Kuzon W. M. Jr, Roberts E., Zhao L., & Jorns J. M. Clinicopathological findings in female-to-male gender-affirming breast surgery. Histopathology 2017;71(6):859–865, doi: 10.1111/his.13299 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref076] 76.Grynberg M., Fanchin R., Dubost G., Colau J. C., Brémont-Weil C., Frydman R., et al. Histology of genital tract and breast tissue after long-term testosterone administration in a female-to-male transsexual population. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;20(4):553–558, doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.12.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref077] 77.Slagter M. H., Gooren L. J., Scorilas A., Petraki C. D., & Diamandis E. P. Effects of long-term androgen administration on breast tissue of female-to-male transsexuals. J Histochem Cytochem 2006;54(8):905–910, doi: 10.1369/jhc.6A6928.2006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref078] 78.D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology; 2013 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref079] 79.Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012;380(9855):1778–1786, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref080] 80.Berrington de González A. Estimates of the potential risk of radiation-related cancer from screening in the UK. J Med Screen 2011;18(4):163–164, doi: 10.1258/jms.2011.011073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref081] 81.Reed B, Rhodes S, Schofield P, Wylie K. Gender variance in the UK: Prevalence, incidence, growth and geographic distribution. Gender identity and education society: Leatherhead; 2009. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0299333.ref082] 82.Su M., Huynh V., Bronsert M., Su E., Goode J., Lock A., et al. Longitudinal Risk Management for Patients with Increased Risk for Breast Cancer. J Surg Res 2021;266(421–429, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Aspects to consider regarding breast cancer risk in trans men: A systematic review and risk management approach

Edvin Wahlström

Riccardo A Audisio

Gennaro Selvaggi

Roles

Abstract

Background

Aim

Methods

Results

Clinical implications

Conclusion

Introduction

Materials and methods

Search methodology

Risk analysis

Structural design

Ethics

Results

Cases of breast cancer in trans men

Fig 1. PRISMA flowchart.

Table 1. Reported cases of breast cancer in trans men.

Quality assessment of the included studies on breast cancer in trans men

Table 2. Quality assessment.

Epidemiology of breast cancer in trans men

Breast cancer screening in cis women

Breast cancer screening in trans men

Table 3. Guidelines for breast cancer screening, pre- and post-chest contouring mastectomy, in trans men.

Histopathologic examination of breast tissue from cis women

Histopathologic examination of breast tissue from trans men

Comparison and applicability

Surgical considerations regarding breast cancer risk

Cross sex hormone therapy

Breast cancer screening modalities for trans men

Screening-related harm

Risk management

Fig 2. Swiss cheese model.

Slice 1: Identify high-risk patients

Slice 2: Screening

Slice 3: Education

Slice 4: Participation in post-surgery follow-up visits

Slice 5: Histopathologic examination of excised breast tissue

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Daniele Ugo Tari

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Daniele Ugo Tari

Roles

Acceptance letter

Daniele Ugo Tari

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases