Abstract P4-16-04: Outcome of stage II/III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant radiotherapy in British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Backgroud: Neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NRT) is generally recommended after systemic therapy for inoperable stage III breast cancer. At the BCCA, neoadjuvant radiation is also frequently offered for patients with operable node positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. There is a lack of randomised trial data comparing outcomes in stage II/III breast cancer when radiation therapy is delivered neoadjuvantly versus adjuvantly. Aim: The primary objective of this study is to assess the clinical outcomes, as measured by relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), of women with stage II/III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and either neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiotherapy. Methods: Patients were identified by linking the Breast Cancer Outcomes Unit (BCOU) with the British Columbia Cancer Agency Pharmacy data repository. Inclusion criteria included: Female, referred to BCCA with newly diagnosed disease, clinical stage II or III breast cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, breast surgery performed as part of the initial treatment plan, RT (given adjuvantly or neo-adjuvantly to the breast/chest wall +/− regional nodes). Patients were excluded if they had a previous or synchronous in situ or invasive breast cancer. Demographic data, treatment characteristics, ER, PR and HER-2 status (when available) were extracted. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and Kaplan Méier curves survival analyses were produced using SPSS, V. 14. Results: Between Jan 1, 1995 and Dec 31, 2008, 687 patients with stage II/III disease were identified. 394 patients received neo-adjuvant and 293 patients received adjuvant radiation. Patients treated with neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant RT differed in age (median: 51yrs vs. 49yrs, p < 0.001), margin status (86.5% negative/5.1% positive/ 8.4% unknown vs. 94.2% negative/1.7% positive/4.1% unknown, p = 0.02), surgery (94.2% vs. 87.7% mastectomy, p = 0.003), and type of chemotherapy (50.3% vs. 24.6% anthracycline only, p < 0.001) respectively. No differences in 5-year RFS (60.0 vs. 64.8 %, respectively, p = 0.07), 5 year BCSS (67.9 vs. 73.1 %, respectively p = 0.17) and 5-year OS (66.2 vs. 72.5 %, respectively, p = 0.06) were seen in the neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant population. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this retrospective study, the sequence of use of radiation pre-operative compared to post-operative following neoadjuvant chemotherapy appears to have similar clinical outcomes. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-16-04.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".