Effects of Nodal Status and Extent of Surgery on Survival in Triple Negative Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) is one of the most aggressive but least understood subtypes of breast cancer. The roles of nodal status and type of surgery while essential in determining the outcomes of patients with TNBC remain controversial and require more examination. Materials and Methods: Clinical and pathological data were retrieved from 1990 until 2001 by retrospective chart review for patients with breast cancer at the American University of Beirut Medical Center. Out of 1455 patients, 524 had complete histological data, of which 138 (26.3%) were diagnosed with TNBC. Median follow up time of patients with TNBC was 3.34 years (Range 0.55 - 10 years). We used the Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate prognostic effects and estimate hazard ratios (HR). Results: For the 138 patients with TNBC, median age at presentation was 50.91 years (Range 26 - 81). One-year, 5 and 10-year survivals for node-negative patients (N0) were respectively 98.3 %, 91.1% and 74.5 %, compared to 98.5%, 70.3 % and 42.2% for node-positive patients (N1-N3). Numerical nodal staging did not significantly correlate with survival. On multivariate analysis, higher stage (H.R 3.01) and Breast-Conserving Therapy (BCT) had a significant effect on the survival of TNBC patients (H.R 0.195) Conclusion: Lymph node-positivity predicted poorer survival in patients with TNBC. However, within the group of patients with positive LN, the number of positive lymph nodes did not alter survival nor did the tumor size. BCT including radiation therapy had a better effect on survival when compared to mastectomy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".