Kim, Esther A.

Importance Limited granular data exist on breast cancer in transgender, nonbinary, and/or gender-diverse (TGD) individuals. Objective To describe patient demographic and tumor clinicopathological variables, clinically relevant risk factors, method of breast cancer detection, treatment characteristics, and locoregional outcomes and to estimate a 5-year breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS). Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study obtained data on patients treated from 1990 to 2023 from 22 US academic medical centers using institutional databases, electronic medical records, and tumor registries. Included participants were TGD individuals 18 years or older with stage 0 to IV breast cancer. A comparative breast cancer cohort was selected from the 2016 to 2021 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) breast cancer dataset. Data were analyzed from January to October 2025. Exposure Breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures Estimated 5-year BCSS and locoregional recurrence rates. Wilcoxon rank sum and χ 2 tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate 5-year BCSS. Results A total of 112 TGD persons (median [IQR] age at diagnosis, 42.5 [36.5-51.0] years; 104 individuals [92.9%] were assigned female at birth) with breast cancer and 1 with bilateral disease were included in the analysis. Forty-three patients (38.4%) used gender-affirming hormone therapy before diagnosis. Among the entire cohort, 58 patients (51.8%) detected their own breast cancer, 68 (60.7%) had a familial breast cancer history, and 16 (14.3%) had a pathogenic germline variant. Tumors were predominantly hormone receptor positive (96 [85.7%]) and early stage (29 [25.7%] ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]; 51 [45.1%] stage I). The TGD cohort, compared with patients with breast cancer in the SEER dataset (N = 480 915), was younger (median [IQR] age, 42.5 [36.5-51.0] years vs 62.0 [52.0-72.0] years), had a higher proportion of persons assigned male at birth (8 [7.1%] vs 3522 [0.7%]), more often had progesterone receptor–positive disease (89 [79.5%] vs 335 491 [69.8%]), and presented with earlier-stage disease (eg, DCIS: 29 [25.9%] vs 79 604 [16.6%]). With a median (IQR) follow-up time for the TGD cohort of 38 (24-74) months, 5-year BCSS was favorable at 96.2% (95% CI, 85.3%-99.0%). Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study of TGD patients with breast cancer found that this population was young and often detected their own tumors via self-examination, suggesting opportunities to improve early detection through screening for individuals at elevated risk. Although short-term BCSS appeared favorable, prospective research is essential to define evidence-based guidelines and elucidate long-term outcomes.

Background: Every day, we see more patients present to hospitals and clinics seeking gender-affirmation care to ameliorate the symptoms of gender dysphoria. However, to provide a multidisciplinary approach, it is important to offer an integrated clinical program that provides mental health assessment, endocrine therapy, physical therapy, research, and the full spectrum of surgical services devoted to transgender patients. This article describes our experience on building a specialized, multidisciplinary, academic state-of-the-art gender-affirmation program. Methods: Herein, we describe the main and critical components on how to build a multidisciplinary academic gender-affirmation program. We share our lessons learned from this experience and describe how to overcome some of the obstacles during the process. Results: Building a multidisciplinary academic gender-affirmation program requires an invested team, as each and every member is essential for feedback, referrals, and to improve patient’s experience. Institutional support is essential and by far the most important component to overcome some of the obstacles during the process. Having all team members working under the same institution provides all the critical components needed to improve outcomes and patient satisfaction. In addition, the collection of prospective data with a well-structured research team will provide information needed to improve clinical services and standardize clinical protocols, while leaving space for innovation. Conclusions: This article describes the steps and experience needed to build a multidisciplinary holistic academic gender-affirmation program. We provide our lessons learned during the process that will help guide those who intend to start an academic gender-affirmation program.

Background: There is an unknown percentage of transgender and gender non-confirming individuals who undergo gender-affirmation surgeries (GAS) that experiences regret. Regret could lead to physical and mental morbidity and questions the appropriateness of these procedures in selected patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of regret in transgender individuals who underwent GAS and evaluate associated factors. Methods: A systematic review of several databases was conducted. Random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: A total of 27 studies, pooling 7928 transgender patients who underwent any type of GAS, were included. The pooled prevalence of regret after GAS was 1% (95% CI <1%–2%). Overall, 33% underwent transmasculine procedures and 67% transfemenine procedures. The prevalence of regret among patients undergoing transmasculine and transfemenine surgeries was <1% (IC <1%–<1%) and 1% (CI <1%–2%), respectively. A total of 77 patients regretted having had GAS. Twenty-eight had minor and 34 had major regret based on Pfäfflin’s regret classification. The majority had clear regret based on Kuiper and Cohen-Kettenis classification. Conclusions: Based on this review, there is an extremely low prevalence of regret in transgender patients after GAS. We believe this study corroborates the improvements made in regard to selection criteria for GAS. However, there is high subjectivity in the assessment of regret and lack of standardized questionnaires, which highlight the importance of developing validated questionnaires in this population.

Background:Transmasculine chest surgery is the most common surgery performed in transmasculine patients, with high overall acceptance and low postoperative complication rates. Trends have shown clear improvement in quality of life and satisfaction. However, to the best of our knowledge, overall patient satisfaction after transmasculine chest surgery and associated factors are largely unknown. The aim of this study is to estimate the overall patient satisfaction in transgender men and nonbinary population after transmasculine chest surgery and to assess associated factors.Methods:A systematic review was conducted by searching literature in several databases. Meta-analyses of prevalence with a random-effect model for overall and subgroup prevalence were performed. Meta-regression, publication bias, and sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results:A total of 1052 transmasculine patients underwent any type of transmasculine chest surgery. The pooled overall postoperative satisfaction was 92% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88–96%]. In the subgroup metanalysis, patient satisfaction after periareolar mastectomy was 93% (CI 88%–97%) and after mastectomy with or without free nipple grafting was 90% (CI 84%–95%). Patient satisfaction for studies with mean follow-up >1 year was 91% (CI 83%–97%) and for mean follow-up of 1 year or less was 93% (CI 89%–96%).Conclusions:This study shows a high level of satisfaction in transmasculine chest surgery for both techniques, which remain stable over time. Also, our results show that this procedure impacts patient satisfaction beyond chest appearance and surgical outcomes. This corroborates its broad acceptance and the improvements in the standard of care, and decision-making approach.