A Case-Match Study Comparing Unilateral With Synchronous Bilateral Breast Cancer Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is controversy about whether patients with synchronous bilateral breast cancer (SBBC) have similar or worse outcomes compared with patients with unilateral breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine whether survival outcomes for patients with SBBC can be estimated from the characteristics of their individual cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had invasive breast cancer, without metastases or inflammatory disease, diagnosed in British Columbia between 1989 and 2000. There were 207 cases with SBBC (diagnosed ≤ 2 months apart) and 15,497 with unilateral breast cancer. By using 10-year breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) estimates, the higher-risk cancer of each SBBC case was determined and matched with three breast cancers from the unilateral cohort to select 621 high-risk matches. The priority sequence of matching the prognostic and predictive variables was positive lymph node number, primary tumor size, age, grade, lymphovascular invasion, estrogen receptor status, local therapy used, margin status, treating clinic, diagnosis year, and type of systemic therapy used. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 10.2 years, the overall 10-year BCSS was significantly higher for the unilateral cohort (81%; 95% CI, 81% to 82%) than for the SBBC cases (71%; 95% CI, 63% to 77%). The SBBC cases had significantly higher mean age and stage at presentation. The 10-year BCSS was 74% (95% CI, 69% to 77%) for the high-risk matches. CONCLUSION: BCSS was not significantly different between the SBBC cases and their high-risk matches.
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".