# Breast Cancer in Men and Quality of Life: A Systematic Review

## TL;DR

This paper reviews studies on quality of life in men with breast cancer, finding limited and inconsistent research.

## Contribution

The study identifies a lack of standardized quality of life assessments in male breast cancer research.

## Key findings

- Only six studies met the inclusion criteria for quality of life in male breast cancer patients.
- Quality of life assessment tools varied widely across the included studies.
- No generalizable conclusions could be drawn due to the heterogeneity of the studies.

## Abstract

Understanding quality of life is important to improve symptom relief, care, and patient rehabilitation. Data suggest the incidence of metastatic breast cancer in men appears to have been increasing over the past 10 years. Although male breast cancer cases are rare, nurses should be able to discern the best possible management of these patients to improve their quality of care. This study aimed to analyze, through a systematic literature review, whether there are studies assessing quality of life in men with male breast cancer. Only 6 articles met the inclusion criteria. Quality of life assessment tools were heterogeneous, and it was not possible to reach a generalizable result.

Background: Quality of Life is a multifaceted concept, and understanding it is essential for improving symptom management, patient care, and rehabilitation. The incidence of metastatic breast cancer in men appears to be rising, with data indicating an increase from 7.2% to 10.3% over the past decade. Although male breast cancer remains rare, it is crucial for nurses to identify the most effective approaches to manage these patients and enhance the quality of care provided. This study aimed to conduct a systematic literature review to determine whether studies exist that assess quality of life in men with breast cancer. Methods: The databases Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and Wiley were systematically searched by two independent reviewers, ensuring that the studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. Results: Out of 2410 references identified, 731 articles remained after removing duplicates. Following the screening process and exclusion of records not meeting the inclusion criteria, 6 studies were ultimately included in the review. Conclusions: The tools used to assess quality of life were heterogeneous, making it impossible to draw generalizable conclusions.