P13.25: Impact of contrast enhanced MR (CE‐MR) of the breast in the management of pregnancy associated breast cancer. Our experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the impact of CE-MR in the management of Pregnancy Associated Breast Cancer (PABC) along with correlation with conventional imaging and post-excisional pathology in a series of 4 cases. A retrospective review of all biopsy proven PABC's (n = 6) diagnosed from Jan 2003 to March 2004 was performed. PABC was defined as breast carcinoma arising in during or within 12 months of pregnancy. (Age range: 31–40yrs). 4/6 had a CE-MR either following pregnancy termination or post partum.3/4 had preoperative and 1/4 post lumpectomy CE-MR, findings were compared to those on conventional imaging and to subsequent lumpectomy (2) or modified radical mastectomy (2). All patients had a mammogram (n = 2 had pleomorphic calcifications), detailed breast ultrasound and CE-MR. MR revealed: Case 1: Previously occult multicentric disease (MRM with node positive). Case 2: larger tumor extent (had a wider lumpectomy node negative, re-excision for positive margins). Case 3: extensive enhancement in addition to the primary tumor (underwent MRM node negative). Case 4: Residual disease in the retroareolar region in the post lumpectomy MR, on biopsy revealed Invasive lobular cancer (re-excision). Excisional pathology in all cases revealed invasive disease with high grade DCIS in all 4. In case 1 and 3 MR was repeated due to diffuse enhancement, which was attributed to the hormone effect of pregnancy and lactation. Thus CEMR changed the surgical approach in 2 patients and could have possibly converted a two stage to single stage procedure in the case 3. CE-MR showed better performance in determining the extent of tumor load in cases of PABC compared to conventional imaging which may assist counseling of patients for the appropriate management. Enhancement of hormonally stimulated normal breast tissue may pose difficulty in confidently excluding multifocal or multicentric disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".