P2-15-07: The Need for Additional Surgeries to Adequately Excise Early Breast Cancers May Have a Negative Impact on Local Recurrence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Breast conservation surgery (BCS) is considered the standard of care for the treatment of early stage breast cancer (ESBC, AJCC stage 1 and 2). 20 to 50% of patients will require further surgery for positive or close margins. There is recent data suggesting that re-operation can have a negative impact on local and distant recurrences. Our aim is to examine the effects of multiple surgeries to obtain adequate margins on breast cancer recurrence, metastatic disease and survival. Methods: We reviewed a prospectively maintained breast cancer database at the University Health Network and included all women who had BCS for their first diagnosis of ESBC between January 2004 and December 2007. Patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. We collected patient demographics, surgical pathology, adjuvant therapy and follow up outcome data, which included local recurrence, distant recurrence, cancer-specific survival and overall survival. Clinical and pathologic features were compared using chi-square analyses. Patients who had one lumpectomy were compared to those who had multiple surgeries by using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log rank test. Results: Of a total of 744 patients (8 patients had bilateral cancer) 577 (77.6%) had one lumpectomy only (Group 1). 167 (22.4%) patients required further surgery (group 2 = LR+LM+LRM): 83 (11.1%) had a re-excision (LR), 69 (9.3%) had mastectomy (LM) and 15 (2%) had a re-excision followed by a mastectomy (LRM). Thus, a total of 85 (11.4%) patients had mastectomy to achieve adequate margins. All clinicopathologic factors and adjuvant systemic treatments were similar between the two groups except for age and use of adjuvant radiotherapy, which was related to that fact that many of those in group 2 had mastectomy. We observed a difference in disease-free survival favoring patients with lumpectomy only (group 1–3.4% vs. group 2–8.1%, p= 0.01) but there was no difference in distant metastasis (4.5% vs. 5.6%, p=0.56), cancer-specific survival (97.6% vs. 95.6%, p=0.20) and overall survival (6.9% vs 6.3%, p= 0.76) at a median follow up of 4.54 years. Conclusion: Despite having similar stage, grade, receptor status and adjuvant systemic therapies, having multiple surgeries for primary breast cancer appeared to be associated with decreased disease-free survival but had no difference in rates of distant metastatic disease, cancer-specific survival and overall survival. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-15-07.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".