MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract OT1-2-02: SHARE. A French multiceter phase III trial comparing accelerated partial irradiation (APBI) versus standard or hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in low risk of local recurrence breast cancer

2012· article· en· W2324209658 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yazid Belkacémi, C. Bourgier, A. Kramar, Jerôme Lemonier, Guillaume Auzac, I. Dumas, T. Lacornerie, S Mijonnet, J-P Mege, Éric Lartigau

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerRadiation therapyClinical endpointDuctal carcinomaBrachytherapyLymphovascular invasionMastectomyWide local excisionCancerSurgeryRandomized controlled trialRadiologyInternal medicineMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introuction: The six worldwilde ongoing APBI phase III trials are characterized by a significant heterogeneity regarding inclusion criteria and stratifications. One non-inferiority trial (SHARE) is currently ongoing in France. SHARE Trial design: SHARE will randomize 2800 patients in 3 arms: standard (Arm A; 6.5 weeks) versus hypofractionated (Arm B; 3 weeks) versus APBI (Arm C; 1 week) using only 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT). In this trial high quality and homogeneous criteria in surgery, pathology and RT for the 3 arms is planed. Primary objective: To estimate and compare the rates of local recurrences between the experimental and control arms. Inclusion criteria Post menopausal women aged ≥ 50y (stratification: < 70 yrs vs ≥ 70 yrs) Menopausal status confirmed since ≥ 12 months (Clinically and/or biologically) No previous ipsilateral breast and/or mediastinal irradiation Pathologic confirmation of invasive carcinoma (all types of invasive carcinomas) Unifocal tumor confirmed on the pathologic specimen Pathologic tumor size of the carcinoma ≤ 2cm (including the in situ component) All pathologic grades (stratification: HER2/triple negative vs others) Clear lateral margins confirmed on the final pathology report. The minimal size from the invasive and in situ disease should be 2 mm (≥ 2mm) pN0 (i+/−) (stratification: pN0 vs pN(i+)) Chemotherapy and trastuzumab are not allowed - RT should be started ≥ 4weeks and ≤ 12 weeks after surgery (including the date of second excision for close or involved margins) Clips in the tumor bed placed during surgery (4 to 5 clips) Treatment Arm A 3D CRT should be started within 12 weeks after the last surgery. A total of 50 Gy is delivered in 25 fractions, one fraction of 2 Gy per day, 5 days a week. In this arm, the boost of 10 to 16 Gy is delivered in 5 to 8 fractions. Dose prescription (arm B) The main point is that in both schedules the total dose is delivered in 3 weeks: – The Canadian schedule described by Whelan et al. delivers 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions (2.65Gy/fraction, 5 fractions/week).– The UK schedule, reported in START B trial delivers 40 Gy in 15 fractions (2.66 Gy/ fraction, 5 fractions/week). Nodal and boost RT is not allowed. Arm C 3D CRT should be started within 12 weeks after the last surgery. Intensity modulated RT (IMRT) and brachytherpayare not allowed. A total dose of 40 Gy in 10 fractions over 1 week (4Gy per fraction twice a day with minimal delay of 6h). Conclusion: In summary, the French trial will allow: – Selected patients according to age and low risk of local recurrence parameters.– To evaluate in a subgroup of patients (4 to 5 centers), the impact of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patient selection and the rate of occult disease (multifocality) not detected by standard imaging evaluation which is considered as an exclusion criteria.– To determine APBI parameters adapted to the surgical procedure in the tumor bed remodeling setting.– To determine homogeneous criteria for the surgical procedure, minimal requirements and optimal criteria that have to be mentioned in the final pathology report in all 3 arms of the study.– To test hypofractionation using 3 weeks-schedules as compared to APBI Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-2-02.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207