Long‐term outcome after breast‐conservation treatment with radiation for mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is detected most commonly on routine screening mammography in the asymptomatic patient, and has a long natural history. The objective of the current study was to determine the long-term outcome after breast-conservation surgery followed by definitive breast irradiation for women with mammographically detected DCIS of the breast. METHODS: In total, 1003 women with unilateral, mammographically detected DCIS of the breast underwent breast-conserving surgery followed by definitive breast irradiation. These women were treated in 10 institutions in North America and Europe. The median follow-up was 8.5 years (mean, 9.0 years; range, 0.2-24.6 years). RESULTS: The 15-year overall survival rate was 89%, and the 15-year cause-specific survival rate was 98%. The 15-year rate of freedom from distant metastases was 97%. In total, there were 100 local failures (10%) in the treated breast. The 15-year rate of any local failure was 19%, and the 15-year rate of local only first failure was 16%. Patient age > or = 50 years at the time of treatment and negative final pathology margins from the primary tumor excision both were associated independently with a lower risk of local failure in univariate analysis (P = 0.00062 and P = 0.024, respectively) and in multivariate analysis (P = 0.00057 and P = 0.0026, respectively). For favorable subgroups of patients age > or = 50 years or with negative resection margins, the 10-year risk of local failure was < or = 8%. CONCLUSIONS: The current results support the use of breast-conserving surgery followed by definitive breast irradiation for the treatment of patients with mammographically detected DCIS of the breast. Patient age > or = 50 years at the time of treatment and negative resection margins both were associated independently with a decreased risk of local failure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".