Tubular Carcinoma of the Breast: A Population-Based Study of Nodal Metastases at Presentation and of Patterns of Relapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tubular carcinoma of the breast (TCB) is a recognized histologic variant of infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) and has been considered to have a comparatively favorable prognosis. However, previous studies have been based on small numbers of cases, some pure TCB and some mixed histology, or have not employed an appropriate comparison group. In this study 171 pure TCB cases and a comparison group of 386 cases with grade I (well differentiated) IDC were identified in a population-based database maintained by the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA). The proportion of cases with axillary nodal involvement at presentation was lower in TCB cases than in the grade I IDC comparison group (12.9% and 23.9%, respectively; p < 0.05). Low-risk tumors (T1 and without vascular lymphatic or perineural invasion) were more prevalent in the TCB patients than in the grade I IDC patients (66.7% and 60.0%; p < 0.05). Low-risk TCB cases had a significantly lower rate of nodal metastases at presentation than low-risk grade I IDC cases (7.0% and 13.2%; p < 0.05). Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analyses indicated a statistically significantly lower rate of local recurrence in TCB cases than among IDC cases (p < 0.05) and a trend toward a lower rate of systemic relapse in TCB cases (p = 0.07). However, no difference in disease-specific survival was observed between TCB cases and grade I IDC comparisons. We conclude that the biologic behavior of TCB was more favorable than that of a comparison group of IDC cases. In view of the low incidence of axillary node metastases at presentation in the low-risk TCB subset (7%), axillary dissection may be omitted as part of the initial surgical management in these patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".