Predicting local recurrence following breast‐conserving therapy for early stage breast cancer: The significance of a narrow (≤2 mm) surgical resection margin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Controversy continues over the extent of surgical resection margin required to minimize the risk of local recurrence (LR) in breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for early stage breast cancer. This study explores whether or not a narrow (≤ 2 mm) but negative resection margin affects LR. METHODS: All patients registered at the Saskatoon Cancer Center between January 1, 1991 and December 31, 2000 with a diagnosis of early stage invasive duct carcinoma treated with BCT were examined. All charts and pathology reports were reviewed with a review of the pathology for all cases where the resection margin was unclear in the original report. Other factors known or thought to effect LR (age, radiation boost, grade, extensive DCIS, ER/PR receptor status) were considered in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Amongst the 200 narrow margin cases 19 LR were detected (19/201 = 9.5%) while 52 LR were detected in the 491 wide margin cases (52/491 =10.6%). This difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: A narrow (≤ 2 mm) surgical resection margin does not result in an increase in LR compared to a surgical resection margin 2 mm in BCT for early stage duct carcinoma and does not warrant re-excision.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".