Compliance With Consensus Recommendations for Systemic Therapy Is Associated With Improved Survival of Women With Node-Negative Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The impact of consensus recommendations for systemic therapy on outcome of disease is unclear. We evaluated if compliance with guidelines for systemic adjuvant treatment is associated with improved survival of women with node-negative breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population included women diagnosed with invasive node-negative breast cancer in Québec, Canada, in 1988 to 1989, 1991 to 1992, and 1993 to 1994. Information was collected by chart review, linkage with administrative databases, and queries to attending physicians. Guidelines from the 1992 St Gallen conference were used as standard of care. Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses. RESULTS: Among 1,541 women, 358 died before December 1999. Median follow-up was 6.8 years. Seven-year event-free and overall survivals were 66% and 81%, respectively. Survival was 88%, 84%, and 74% in women at minimal, moderate, or high risk of recurrence. Virtually all women at minimal risk were treated according to the consensus (98.4% of 370). In comparison, adjusted hazard ratios of death were 1.0 (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.7) and 2.3 (95% CI, 1.3 to 4.0) among women at moderate risk treated according to the consensus or not, respectively. Among women at high risk, adjusted hazard ratios of death were 2.0 (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.8) and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.9), respectively. Both risk category (P <.0005) and compliance with guidelines (P <.0005) were independent significant predictors of survival. CONCLUSION: Treatment according to consensus recommendations is associated with improved survival of women with breast cancer in the community. Promoting the adoption of guidelines for treatment is an effective strategy for disease control.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".