Surveillance Mammography following the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer with Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both the prevalence of breast cancer and the number of breast cancer patients seeking breast reconstruction are increasing, highlighting the importance for evidence to direct the clinician in the follow-up of these patients. Current practice guidelines recommend surveillance mammography of the contralateral breast in all breast cancer patients, and of the ipsilateral breast in women treated with breast-conserving surgery. However, there are no guidelines specifically addressing the role of surveillance mammography for women who have undergone mastectomy and breast reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies specifically addressing the issue of surveillance mammography among women with breast reconstruction following treatment for primary breast cancer. RESULTS: This systematic review identified eight articles, consisting of case reports and case series, that address the issue of surveillance mammography of the ipsilateral breast in women with breast reconstruction. The articles demonstrated that certain local recurrences are able to be detected by surveillance mammography. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated the paucity of evidence and highlighted the need for further research to evaluate this issue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".