Abstract P2-12-02: Is breast-conserving therapy effective in women with large ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions? A population-based analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Most women diagnosed with DCIS will be treated by breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with or without radiotherapy (RT). Data on outcomes following breast-conserving therapy are predominantly based on women with small (<25mm) lesions. The paucity of data on outcomes of women with larger (>40mm) DCIS lesions leads to uncertainty of the appropriateness of breast-conserving therapy for women with larger lesions. Specifically, it is unclear if women with large tumors experience higher risks of local recurrence (LR) and invasive LR after BCS+/-RT that would preclude recommendations of breast-conserving therapy. We report the outcomes and evaluate the impact of large tumor size (>40mm) on recurrence risk in a population of women with pure DCIS treated by BCS alone or with RT. Methods: The cohort includes all women diagnosed with DCIS in Ontario from 1994-2003 treated with BCS +/- RT; 82% had pathology review. Treatment and outcomes were ascertained through administrative databases and validated by chart review. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the impact of tumor size (≤10mm,11-25mm, 26-39mm, ≥40mm) on the development of any LR (DCIS or invasive) and invasive LR. The 10 and 15-year LR-free survival (LRFS) and invasive LRFS rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method with differences compared using the log-rank test. Results: The cohort includes 3262 women with DCIS treated by BCS (N=1635 had RT). Median age at diagnosis was 59 years (IQR 50-68 years). Median follow-up was 13 years (IQR 8-15 years). Distribution of tumor size: 707 (22%) ≤10mm, 524 (16%) 11-25mm, 107 (3%) 26-39mm, 84 (3%) ≥40mm, unable to determine in 1840 (56%). Women with lesions ≥ 40mm were more likely to be ≤50 years of age at diagnosis (p=.02), have high nuclear grade (p<.001), multifocality (p<.001), and positive margins (p<.001) compared to women with smaller lesions. On multivariable analyses adjusted for age and year of diagnosis, tumor size ≥40mm was significantly associated with an increased risk of LR compared to size ≤10mm (HR=2.5, 95%CI:1.64-3.81). Other factors associated with LR were age <50 years (p<.001), omission of RT (p<.001), high nuclear grade (p=.002), and multifocality (p=.0008). Tumor size ≥40mm was not significantly associated with an increased risk of invasive LR (HR=1.68, 95%CI:.94-3.04). Women with tumour size ≥40mm treated with BCS alone had lower 10 and 15 year LRFS (53% and 41%) and invasive LRFS rates (78% and 75%) compared to women with smaller lesions. However, women with larger lesions treated with RT had significantly higher LRFS and invasive LRFS rates Outcomes by tumour size for women with DCIS treated with BCS with or without RT ≤10mm N=70711-25mm N=52426-39mm N=107≥40mm N=84p-valueBCS AloneLRFS (%) 10 yr85797053<0.001 15 yr81746741 Invasive LRFS (%) 10 yr928786780.03 15 yr89838375 BCS + RTLRFS (%) 10 yr928874850.01 15 yr86847079 Invasive LRFS (%) 10 yr959492910.27 15 yr90918789 . There was a significant interaction between tumor size ≥40mm and RT (p=.02). Conclusions: Women with DCIS lesions ≥40mm treated by BCS alone experience significantly higher risks of LR and invasive LR compared to smaller lesions but this risk can be mitigated with the addition of RT. Citation Format: Lalani N, Paszat L, Nofech-Mozes S, Sutradhar R, Gu S, Hanna W, Fong C, Miller N, Youngson B, Done SJ, Tuck A, Chang MC, Sengupta S, Jani PA, Bonin M, Rakovitch E. Is breast-conserving therapy effective in women with large ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions? A population-based analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-12-02.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».