MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2594130610 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs16-p3-17-01

Abstract P3-17-01: Long-term rates of breast preservation after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ

2017· article· en· W2594130610 sur OpenAlexaff
Eileen Rakovitch, Sharon Nofech‐Mozes, Wahid T. Hanna, Shuyan Gu, Cindy Fong, Alex Tuck, Sameer Sengupta, Leela Elavathil, PA Jani, SJ Done, Nathan Miller, Bruce Youngson, M. Bonin, MC Chang, L Paszat

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Établissements canadiensSudbury Regional HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesJuravinski HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreKingston General HospitalMount Sinai HospitalThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineDuctal carcinomaBreast-conserving surgeryBreast cancerMastectomyPopulationRadiation therapyOncologyInternal medicineGynecologyCancer

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Despite evidence that radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) halves the risk of recurrence, the benefit of RT in the management of DCIS continues to be a matter of controversy. One argument against the use of RT after BCS is that patients who develop ipsilateral local recurrence (LR) can be salvaged with further breast-conserving surgery such that the omission of RT will lead to high rates of breast preservation while minimizing exposure to RT. Breast preservation is an important determinant of quality of life for women with early stage breast cancer and DCIS. Yet the management of LR and the impact of RT on the resultant long-term risks of bilateral breast preservation in a population of women with DCIS are unclear. We assessed the treatment of LR, the impact of RT on the use of salvage mastectomy and the long-term risks of bilateral breast preservation achieved in a population of women with DCIS treated with BCS alone or BCS+RT. Methods: A population-based analysis of women diagnosed with DCIS from 1994-2003 treated with BCS alone or BCS+RT with pathology review. Treatment and outcomes, including the development of LR and contralateral breast events, were determined by administrative databases with validation by review of operative or pathology reports. Median follow-up was 10.2 years for cases treated by BCS alone, 11.6 years for those treated by BCS+RT. We used a propensity-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model to evaluate factors associated with the use of salvage mastectomy for LR and to evaluate factors associated with any mastectomy. We assessed the risk of long-term breast preservation by calculating the KM 10-year risk of ipsilateral mastectomy and any mastectomy. Results: The population cohort includes 3303 women with pure DCIS;1649 (50%) were treated by BCS alone, 1654 (50%) received BCS+RT. Women treated with RT had more high risk features of DCIS than those treated by BCS alone. LR developed in 343 (21%) women treated by BCS alone and in 257 (15.5%) women treated by BCS+RT (p<0.01). Most women who developed LR received salvage mastectomy, irrespective of age at diagnosis and histology. Salvage mastectomy was used in 57.4% (197/343) of cases that recurred after BCS alone and in 67.6% (173/257) that recurred after BCS+RT. The likelihood of receiving salvage mastectomy for LR was similar in patients initially treated by BCS+RT vs. those initially treated BCS alone. Most (90%) of mastectomies were performed for a LR. Overall, individuals initially treated by BCS+RT had a 29% lower probability of having a mastectomy at 10 years compared to those treated by BCS alone (HR=0.71, 95%CI: 0.60,0.84,p<0.0001). The 10 year mastectomy-free survival rates are 82.7% for women initially treated by BCS alone and 87.3% for those treated by BCS+RT (p=0.0096). Conclusion: Women who received RT after BCS for DCIS experience a greater likelihood of long-term bilateral breast preservation. This is attributable to the lower risks of LR and that most local recurrences after breast-conserving therapy are treated by salvage mastectomy. Long-term breast preservation should be considered in discussions weighing the benefits and risks of RT after conservative surgery for DCIS. Citation Format: Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, Gu S, Fong C, Tuck A, Sengupta S, Elavathil L, Jani P, Done S, Miller N, Youngson B, Bonin M, Chang M, Paszat L. Long-term rates of breast preservation after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-17-01.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,014

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,071
Tête enseignante GPT0,402
Écart entre enseignants0,331 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Research→Même sujetBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→Travaux en français237 207→