MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132266744 · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-356

The Multi Centre Canadian Acellular Dermal Matrix Trial (MCCAT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial in implant-based breast reconstruction

2013· article· en· W2132266744 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Toni Zhong, Claire Temple‐Oberle, Stefan O.P. Hofer, Brett Beber, John L. Semple, Mitchell H. Brown, Sheina A. Macadam, Peter Lennox, Tony Panzarella, Colleen M. McCarthy, Nancy N. Baxter

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalVancouver General HospitalAlberta Health ServicesWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCure Brain Cancer FoundationWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health NetworkAmerican Society of Clinical OncologyPlastic Surgery FoundationConquer Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicineBreast reconstructionImplantMastectomyRandomized controlled trialPatient satisfactionRandomizationQuality of life (healthcare)SurgeryPopulationStage (stratigraphy)Breast cancerCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The two-stage tissue expander/implant (TE/I) reconstruction is currently the gold standard method of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction in North America. Recently, however, there have been numerous case series describing the use of one-stage direct to implant reconstruction with the aid of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). In order to rigorously investigate the novel application of ADM in one-stage implant reconstruction, we are currently conducting a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the impact on patient satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) compared to the two-stage TE/I technique. METHODS/DESIGNS: The MCCAT study is a multicenter Canadian ADM trial designed as a two-arm parallel superiority trial that will compare ADM-facilitated one-stage implant reconstruction compared to two-stage TE/I reconstruction following skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) at 2 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The source population will be members of the mastectomy cohort with stage T0 to TII disease, proficient in English, over the age of 18 years, and planning to undergo SSM or NSM with immediate implant breast reconstruction. Stratified randomization will maintain a balanced distribution of important prognostic factors (study site and unilateral versus bilateral procedures). The primary outcome is patient satisfaction and QOL as measured by the validated and procedure-specific BREAST-Q. Secondary outcomes include short- and long-term complications, long-term aesthetic outcomes using five standardized photographs graded by three independent blinded observers, and a cost effectiveness analysis. DISCUSSION: There is tremendous interest in using ADM in implant breast reconstruction, particularly in the setting of one-stage direct to implant reconstruction where it was previously not possible without the intermediary use of a temporary tissue expander (TE). This unique advantage has led many patients and surgeons alike to believe that one-stage ADM-assisted implant reconstruction should be the procedure of choice and should be offered to patients as the first-line treatment. We argue that it is crucial that this technique be scientifically evaluated in terms of patient selection, surgical technique, complications, aesthetic outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and most importantly patient-reported outcomes before it is promoted as the new gold standard in implant-based breast reconstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00956384.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207