Intervals Longer Than 20 Weeks From Breast-Conserving Surgery to Radiation Therapy Are Associated With Inferior Outcome for Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer Who Are Not Receiving Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the interval from breast-conserving surgery (BCS) to radiation therapy (RT) that affects local control or survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 10-year Kaplan-Meier (KM) local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were computed for 6,428 women who had T1 to 2, N0 to 1, M0 breast cancer that was diagnosed in British Columbia between 1989 and 2003, and who were treated with BCS and RT without chemotherapy. Intervals from BCS to RT were grouped by weeks as follows: < or = 4 (n = 83), greater than 4 to 8 (n = 2,288; reference group); greater than 8 to 12 (n = 2,606); greater than 12 to 16 (n = 961); greater than 16 to 20 (n = 358); and greater than 20 weeks (n = 132). Cox proportional hazards models and matching were used to control for confounding variables. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 7.5 years. The 10-year KM outcomes were as follows: LRFS, 95.4%; DRFS, 90.5%; and BCSS, 92.5%. Compared with the greater than 4 to 8 weeks group, hazard ratios (HR) were not significantly different for any outcome among patients who were treated up to 20 weeks after BCS. However, LRFS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.00; P = .15), DRFS (HR, 1.86; P = .02) and BCSS (HR, 2.15; P = .009) were inferior for women with BCS-to-RT intervals greater than 20 weeks compared with those greater than 4 to 8 weeks. The matched analysis yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: Outcomes were statistically similar for BCS-to-RT intervals up to 20 weeks, but they were inferior for intervals beyond 20 weeks. Time can be reasonably allowed for the breast to heal and for patients to consider treatment options, but RT should start within 20 weeks of BCS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".