Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The omission of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer is associated with higher rates of relapse and a slightly higher mortality rate, according to a study in the January 21 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Many studies have shown that women with early-stage breast cancer who have breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy have similar survival rates as women who have a mastectomy, and those women are also spared the disfiguration of losing their breast. However, radiotherapy prolongs the length of time that women are treated for breast cancer, the treatment can be costly, radiotherapy facilities are not common in all areas, and there are some side effects to radiotherapy. For these reasons, several studies have examined the consequences of omitting radiotherapy from the treatment regimen. Vincent Vinh-Hung, M.D., of the Oncology Center at Academic Hospital in Jette, Belgium, and colleagues performed a pooled analysis of 15 randomized clinical trials of women with early-stage breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery alone or surgery followed by radiotherapy. They analyzed recurrence rates based on information from 9,422 women, and mortality information was available for 8,206 women. The authors calculated that the women who received breast-conserving surgery alone were three times more likely to have a relapse than women who had breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy. (In clinical trials that had 5 or more years of follow-up information, the relapse rate ranged from 0.4% to 2.1% per year for women who received breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy, compared with 1.4% to 5.7% per year among women who only had surgery.) The authors also calculated that the omission of radiotherapy resulted in an 8.6% relative excess of deaths. “The present study confirms that radiotherapy should not be omitted after breast-conserving surgery, except for medical contraindications such as systemic vascular disease or a previous history of irradiation,” the authors conclude. In an editorial, Katherine A. Vallis, M.D., Ph.D., and Ian F. Tannock, M.D., Ph.D., of Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, note that, although there may be a small subset of women with good prognostic factors who do not need to have radiotherapy after surgery, this analysis “reinforces the view that the large majority of patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery should also receive radiotherapy.” ### Contacts: • Claire Verschraegen, University of New Mexico Cancer Research and Treatment Center, Albuquerque, 505-272 6760, cverschraegen@salud.unm.edu; Vincent Vinh-Hung, Oncology Center at Academic Hospital, Jette, Belgium, +32 2 477 6041, conrvhgv@az.vub.ac.be • Editorial: Vince Rice, Princess Margaret Hospital, (416) 946-4501, ext. 5771; vince.rice@uhn.on.ca Citations: • Vinh-Hung V, Verschraegen C, for the Breast Conserving Surgery Project. Breast-conserving surgery with or without radiotherapy: pooled-analysis for risks of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:115–21. • Vallis KA, Tannock IF. Postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer: growing evidence for an impact on survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:88–9. Note: The Journal of the National Cancer Institute is published by Oxford University Press and is not affiliated with the National Cancer Institute. Attribution to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute is requested in all news coverage. Visit the Journal online at http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/.
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 | 0,004 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,045 | 0,013 |
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 ».