MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte

Significance of axillary lymph node extranodal soft tissue extension and indications for postmastectomy irradiation

2000· letter· en· W2917208839 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph Ragaz, Stewart M. Jackson

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer · 2000
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Établissements canadiensBC Cancer Agency
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAxillary lymph nodesLymph nodeBreast cancerLymphMastectomyRadiation therapyBreast carcinomaSurgeryRadical mastectomyCarcinomaRadiologyInternal medicineCancerPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Mignano et al. report on the important entity of extranodal extension in Axillary Lymph node (ALN) positive breast carcinoma.1 This entity, as the authors indicate, has been reported in the literature, with the majority of studies reporting a higher rate of locoregional and systemic recurrences, compared with cases without extranodal extension. The authors report on 43 cases with extranodal extension from 487 clinical T1-T3, pN1 breast carcinoma cases diagnosed between 1974–1994 at their single institution. All patients underwent a modified radical mastectomy and 58% received systemic adjuvant treatment but no patient received adjuvant locoregional radiation. Their results showed that the extranodal positive subsets had significantly lower disease free and overall survival rates and a significantly higher proportion of patients had greater than four positive ALNs. Authors observed that despite high overall recurrence rates in patients with extranodal extension, the risk of axillary recurrence, either as an isolated event or as a part of simultaneous failure, was extremely low. Therefore, the authors concluded that although these patients with extranodal extension may be considered for radiation treatment on the basis of having a high number of positive lymph nodes, the presence of extranodal extension alone is not an indication for routine axillary radiation. We agree with the authors that extranodal extension does have a higher association with recurrence and breast carcinoma mortality, and a significant association with a higher rate of positive lymph nodes. Similar findings were found in the analysis of the British Columbia randomized trial.2 However, we disagree with the conclusion that because of a low rate of axillary recurrences, axillary radiotherapy is not required in these patients. Axillary recurrences are infrequent in ALN positive patients and do not adequately reflect the potential for systemic dissemination. Although the British Columbia trial reported 61% systemic recurrence rate in the chemotherapy-alone arm, the rate of locoregional recurrence was only 23%,3 and that of isolated axillary recurrence was only 6%.4 Therefore, the majority of systemic recurrences (> 70%) took place in the absence of locoregional failures, and > 90% of all systemic recurrences were noted without axillary failure. Recent large, prospectively randomized trials have shown that locoregional radiotherapy will reduce systemic recurrences and thus decrease breast mortality significantly in ALN positive breast carcinoma cases.3, 5, 6 In all trials, locoregional radiation therapy was used uniformly, and hence the omission of axillary or other radiotherapy fields, in any subset, may depreciate the significant survival gains documented. The update of British Columbia trial also showed that patients with N1-3 lymph nodes had a substantial radiation therapy survival benefit (relative risk [RR] = 0.65), with more significance in a subset of patients with extensive lymph node/extracapsular spread (EESN, RR = 0.47; P = 0.035). However, the importance of EESN was not established when locoregional recurrences alone were analyzed. EESN is a broader category of risk than extranodal extension alone because it includes extensive lymph node replacement as well as extracapsular spread. Yet both have one basic commonality: they both express extensive lymph node involvement/replacement and select for biologically more aggressive disease. Our data show, in a randomized trial, that radiation therapy will confer in those subsets a substantial survival benefit. Thus, the extranodal extension may be of particular signifigance in patients with N1–3 disease who presently are not considered for routine radiation therapy. This considerable benefit of radiation on breast cancer mortality in EESN positive cases would be entirely missed if only axillary recurrences were analyzed and considered as an indication for radiation therapy. Joseph Ragaz M.D.*, Stewart M. Jackson M.D. , * Department of Medical Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
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 enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,012

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,265
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · 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

Citations7
Publié2000
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancerMême sujetBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesTravaux en français237 207