Abstract P2-10-23: Lymphovascular Invasion (LVI) and Overall Survival in Node-negative and Node-positive Breast Cancer Patients: A Meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: LVI is an important prognostic factor in patients with lymph node-negative invasive breast cancer. The prognostic value of LVI in lymph node-positive disease or in other subgroups remains unclear. Here we present a meta-analysis of studies assessing the impact of LVI on overall survival (OS) in different subgroups of breast cancer patients. Methods: A published data meta-analysis was conducted. Studies reporting hazard ratios (HR) for the association of LVI with OS in a multivariable model were included. Those not reporting HR or utilizing only univariable analyses were excluded. HR and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted or computed and pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted for the differential effect of lymph node involvement, estrogen receptor (ER) status, extent of LVI and decade in which the study was conducted (pre 1990, 1990–1999 and 2000 onwards). Results: Twenty studies comprising 40,417 patients were included in the analysis. There was marked heterogeneity in the effect size between studies (Cochran Q p < 0.001, I2=62%). When all studies were pooled, LVI was significantly associated with worse OS (HR:1.70 95% CI 1.49–1.95, p < 0.001). Among studies selecting patients by lymph node status, the association between LVI and OS was similar for lymph node positive and negative patients (HR:2.03 and 2.41 respectively, subgroup difference p = 0.56). There were no significant differences based on ER-status (subgroup difference p = 0.75) or decade of study (subgroup difference p = 0.21). Pooled assessment of the effect of extent of LVI was not possible as this parameter was not consistently reported. Conclusion: LVI is associated with similarly detrimental OS regardless of lymph-node or ER status. Improvements in adjuvant therapies over the past 20 years do not appear to have diluted the impact of LVI on OS. The marked heterogeneity in the effect size may result from differences in the extent of LVI. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-10-23.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".