Immediate postmastectomy reconstruction is associated with improved breast cancer‐specific survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although immediate breast reconstruction is increasingly offered as part of postmastectomy psychosocial rehabilitation, concerns remain that it may delay adjuvant therapy or impair detection of local recurrence. No single population-based study has examined the relationship between immediate breast reconstruction and breast cancer-specific survival. METHODS: By using data from the US National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries, breast cancer-specific survival was compared for female unilateral mastectomy patients who did or did not undergo immediate breast reconstruction. Cox proportional hazards models were fitted, adjusting for known demographic and disease severity variables and stratifying on reconstruction type (implant or autologous) and age. RESULTS: Improved breast cancer-specific survival was observed among all immediate breast reconstruction patients compared with patients who underwent mastectomy alone (hazard ratio [HR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.80). Implant reconstruction patients below 50 years of age demonstrated the greatest apparent survival benefit (HR=0.47; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.80). Similarly, autologous reconstruction was associated with improved cancer-specific survival among patients below the age of 50 (HR=0.58; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.80) and between ages 50 to 69 (HR=0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate breast reconstruction is associated with decreased breast cancer-specific mortality, particularly among younger women. We believe this association is more likely attributable to imbalances in socioeconomic factors and access to care than to inadequate adjustment for tumor characteristics and disease severity. Further research is needed to identify additional prognostic factors responsible for the improved cancer survival among women undergoing immediate postmastectomy reconstruction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".