A comparison of four treatment strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ using decision analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goals of the current study were to compare four treatment approaches in the management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), to determine the conditions where mastectomy may be preferred to breast-conserving therapy (BCT), and to determine conditions where the addition of tamoxifen produces better results than BCT alone. METHODS: A decision analysis model was used to compare four treatment approaches after local excision for DCIS: mastectomy, irradiation, irradiation plus adjuvant tamoxifen, or observation. The model weighed the potential benefits of each treatment approach (reduction of ipsilateral and/or contralateral breast carcinoma) against the potential risks of treatment-related toxicities. In addition, the model adjusted for the potential detrimental impact of local recurrence or treatment-related toxicity on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Base-case estimates were obtained from published randomized trial data. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: According to the model, the optimal treatment for DCIS was strongly dependent on the individual's risk of local recurrence and the patient's attitudes toward mastectomy. Mastectomy was preferred in patients whose estimated 10-year risk of local recurrence was > 15%, provided that mastectomy resulted in a very low reduction in quality of life (i.e., utility estimate > 0.97). Conditions where the addition of tamoxifen was preferred to breast-conserving therapy alone included the following: estimated 10-year risk of local recurrence > 38%, estimated 10-year risk of developing a contralateral breast carcinoma > 6%, or a significant decrement in HRQOL associated with the development of an invasive local recurrence or salvage mastectomy (utility estimates < 0.85). CONCLUSION: Based on this quality-adjusted model, BCT appeared to be the preferred treatment for DCIS. The most important determinants of optimal management for DCIS included the risk of local recurrence and the utility of mastectomy. Formal evaluation of utilities in the context of DCIS and more accurate determination of the risk of recurrence are required.
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 | 0.035 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".