Accelerated partial breast irradiation using once-daily fractionation: analysis of 312 cases with four years median follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited data on accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using external beam techniques. Moreover, there are recent reports of increased fibrosis and unacceptable cosmesis with APBI using external beam with BID fractionation. We adopted a once daily regimen of APBI with fractionation similar to that shown to be effective in a Canadian randomized trial of whole breast irradiation. It is unclear whether patients with DCIS or invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) are suitable for APBI. METHODS: The retrospective cohort included 310 patients with 312 tumors of T1-T2N0-N1micM0 invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), ILC, or Tis (DCIS) treated with APBI via external beam. Most patients were treated using IMRT with 16 daily fractions of 270 cGy to a dose of 4320 cGy. The target volume included the lumpectomy cavity plus 1.0 cm to account for microscopic disease and an additional 0.5 to 1.0 cm for setup uncertainty and breathing motion. Ipsilateral breast failure (IBF) was pathologically confirmed as a local failure (LF) or an elsewhere failure (EF). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 49 months. Among the 312 cases, 213 were IDC, 31 ILC, and 68 DCIS. Median tumor size was 1.0 cm. There were 9 IBFs (2.9%) including 5 LFs and 4 EFs. The IBF rates among patients with IDC, ILC, and DCIS were 2.4%, 3.2%, and 4.4%, respectively, with no significant difference between histologies. When patients were analyzed by the ASTRO APBI consensus statement risk groups, 32% of treated cases were considered suitable, 50% cautionary, and 18% unsuitable. The IBF rates among suitable, cautionary, and unsuitable patients were 4.0%, 2.6%, and 1.8%, respectively, with no significant difference between risk groups. Acute skin reactions were rare and long-term cosmetic outcome was very good to excellent. CONCLUSIONS: External beam APBI with once daily fractionation has a low rate of IBF consistent with other published APBI studies. The ASTRO risk stratification did not differentiate a subset of patients with a higher rate of IBF. APBI may be an appropriate treatment for women with DCIS and ILC.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".