MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluation of comparative survival based on the AJCC 5th and 6th editions for breast cancer staging: 25 year experience in two southwest Washington state community cancer programs

2006· article· en· W2277668470 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. Kim, P. Sanghvi, C. Marquez, C. R. Kim, Charles R. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStage (stratigraphy)CancerBreast cancerCancer stagingRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6118 Background: The revised American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) sixth edition (6th ed.) cancer staging system increased stratification within breast cancer (BC) stages II and III defined by the AJCC 5th ed. system. The specific aim of this study was to determine and compare disease-free survival (DFS) for stage 0-III breast carcinoma between the 5th and 6th editions using retrospective data gathered from 1980–2004 in southwest Washington state (WA). Methods: 4,810 patients (pts) were identified using cancer registries at Saint John Medical Center in Longview, WA and Southwest Washington Medical Center in Vancouver, WA. Patients were restaged retrospectively using the 5th and 6th ed. systems. DFS was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: The age at diagnosis ranged 20–99 yrs, with a mean age = 60. The mean length for disease-free follow-up was 224 mos. Stage 0 and stage 1 criteria were unchanged between editions, and 10-yr DFS was 94% and 87% for stage 0 and stage 1, respectively. In stage II pts, 13% (199/1,519) were upstaged to stage III by the 6th ed. criteria, significantly improving the 10-yr DFS for stage II from 66% (5th ed.) to 72% (6th ed; p = 0.003). The majority, 85% (167/199), of pts upstaged were from the 539 classified as stage IIb disease by the 5th ed. This accompanied an increase in the 10-year DFS for stage IIb from 54% (fifth) to 62% (sixth; p = 0.046). The number of pts with stage III disease increased from 313 to 588 in the 6th ed. 10-year DFS increased from 30% to 36% (p = 0.025), respectively. Most of this increase resulted from changes within stage IIIa, as DFS increased from 32% to 41% (p = 0.046). When compared, DFS outcomes between stage IIIb and IIIc were not found to be statistically significant (p = 0.501). Conclusions: The AJCC 6th ed. system for BC provides greater distinctions between stages compared to the 5th ed., and reclassification results in significant changes in projected outcomes. However, the addition of the IIIc substage does not seem to show the same significant distinction when compared to the existing stage IIIb substage in outcomes. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.246
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→