Nonrandomized Comparison between Concomitant and Sequential Chemoradiotherapy with Anthracyclines in Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the tolerance of concomitant administration of anthracycline-based chemotherapy (CHT) and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty-seven patients, treated with conservative surgery followed by 3-dimensional whole breast RT and concomitant CHT regimens including “Canadian modified” CEF (5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide) or AC (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) were evaluated for toxicity. They were compared in terms in compliance and acute toxicity with 67 patients irradiated sequentially after having received anthracyclines. RESULTS: Acute grade ≥2 skin toxicity was significantly higher in the concomitant group compared to the sequential group, although the incidence of Grade 3 desquamation showed no statistical difference (9% vs. 3%, p = 0.14). Haematological toxicity represented the main cause of treatment discontinuation, reporting higher rate of grade 3-4 leuco-neutropenia in the concomitant group (20.9% vs. 6%, p = 0.01). Mean RT duration was longer in the concomitant group (51 days vs. 45 days) owing to RT breaks. Late toxicity was acceptable. No symptomatic lung and heart events were reported. Radiological lung hyperdensity was detected in 27.7% of the patients in the concomitant group. Post-treatment left ventricular ejection fraction significantly decreased compared with baseline, but cardiac function remained within the normal range, without any difference between left or right-sided RT. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was more acute grade ≥2 skin toxicity in the concomitant group, the rate of grade 3 dermatitis was lower than expected, suggesting some advantages of 3-D CRT over older techniques. Haematological toxicity exerted a significant impact on both RT and CHT delivery.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".