MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4220923359 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-p3-03-20

Abstract P3-03-20: The association of preoperative MRI with surgical decision-making in patients with early-stage breast cancer: A multi-institutional analysis

2022· article· en· W4220923359 sur OpenAlexaff
Peter Borowsky, Seraphina Choi, Orly Morgan, Amy K White, Claudya Morin, Jose Net, Susan B. Kesmodel, Neha Goel, Yamini Patel, Alexa Griffiths, Joshua A. Feinberg, Aaron Kangas‐Dick, Charusheela Andaz, Christina Giuliano, Natalie Zelenko, Donna‐Marie Manasseh, Patrick I. Borgen, Kristin E. Rojas

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversité Laval
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineLumpectomyBreast cancerMastectomyBreast MRIStage (stratigraphy)CohortCancerRetrospective cohort studyBreast surgerySurgeryInternal medicineMammography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Lumpectomy with radiation (breast conservation) and mastectomy have equivalent overall survival. However, recent studies suggest that patients undergoing breast conservation have lower rates of recurrence compared to those undergoing mastectomy. A 2013 meta-analysis by Houssami, et al. found that the rate of mastectomy in patients who had preoperative MRI was 16%, twice as high as that in patients who did not have preoperative MRI. A multi-institutional analysis was performed to investigate the possible impact of modern MRI on the surgical management of early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). Methods: A retrospective comparative cohort study included patients with in-situ and invasive breast cancer eligible for breast conservation surgery from two institutions (NY and FL). Patients who received preoperative systemic therapy were excluded. Eligibility for breast conservation was defined as clinical stage Tis-2. Risk factors for the bilateral or multicentric disease were compared between the two groups including breast density, menopausal status, and concerning family history. The rate of ipsilateral mastectomy in lumpectomy-eligible women was compared between patients who did and did not receive preoperative MRI. Chi-square analysis was used to compare rates between groups. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: 505 patients diagnosed between 1/2016-4/2019 (NY) and 2/2020-12/2020 (FL) underwent primary surgery for ESBC. 434 did not receive neoadjuvant therapy and were included in the analysis. 292 (67.3%) had preoperative MRI. There was no difference in the proportion of patients who were premenopausal or who met the criteria for genetic testing by family history. The largest dimension on preoperative imaging was similar between the two groups. Patients who had MRI were younger (median age 58 vs. 68, p<0.001) and more likely to have group 3 or 4 breast density (64.5% vs. 27.1%, p<0.001). Patients who underwent preoperative MRI were twice as likely to undergo mastectomy as their first surgery (32.6% vs. 15.3%, p<0.001). The rate of re-excision was similar between the two groups (MRI 13.0% vs. no MRI 10.8% p=0.511). Of note, the final pathologic size of the invasive or in-situ component was similar between the two groups (Table 1). Conclusion: Younger age and greater breast density are associated with preoperative MRI receipt and all three factors likely play a role in choosing mastectomy. Young women with dense breasts represent a unique cohort of patients that may be particularly susceptible to cancer-related worry and anxiety related to additional biopsies, and therefore may be more likely to opt against continued breast imaging. Since approximately 70% of patients with ESBC undergo preoperative MRI, future work should focus on mitigating these challenges to improve shared decision-making. Table 1.Comparison of ESBC Patients Who Did and Did Not Receive MRIMRI (n=292) %, median (IQR)No MRI (n=142)%, median (IQR)p-valueAge58 years (50-65)68 years (60-76)<0.001bPremenopausal27%21%0.108Dense Breasts65%27%<0.001bMeet Criteria for Genetic Testing40%38%0.207Imaging Size13 mm (9-21)12 mm (8-20)0.315Mastectomy as First Surgery33%15%<0.001bPlan for Repeat Surgerya20%24%0.402Re-excision13%11%0.511Pathologic Size (Invasive)13 mm (8-20)13 mm (9-22)0.482Pathologic Size (DCIS)10 mm (5-20)8 mm (3-15)0.093aRepeat surgery includes re-excision, completion mastectomy, and axillary dissectionbDenotes significant p-values. Citation Format: Peter A Borowsky, Seraphina Choi, Orly Morgan, Amy K White, Claudya Morin, Jose Net, Susan Kesmodel, Neha Goel, Yamini Patel, Alexa Griffiths, Joshua A Feinberg, Aaron Kangas-Dick, Charusheela Andaz, Christina Giuliano, Natalie Zelenko, Donna-Marie Manasseh, Patrick Borgen, Kristin E Rojas. The association of preoperative MRI with surgical decision-making in patients with early-stage breast cancer: A multi-institutional analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-03-20.

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
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 seuil0,023

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,005
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,341
Écart entre enseignants0,324 · 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
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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