Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rate stable at major Canadian breast cancer center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine trends of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates at a Canadian academic breast cancer center. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective cohort study was completed. Women of any age who underwent at least a unilateral mastectomy (UM) for primary unilateral breast carcinoma between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2010 were included. Patients who underwent CPM on the same day as UM were isolated to create two distinct cohorts. Patient and procedure characteristics were compared across groups using R software (version 3.1.0). The percentage of CPMs per year was determined. The Cochrane-Armitage test was used to assess the trend of CPMs over time. A P value of < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 811 women met the inclusions/exclusion criteria; 759 (93.6%) underwent UM alone and 52 (6.4%) underwent UM with immediate CPM. The absolute number of procedures (UM and UM + CPM) increased over time, from 83 in 2004 to 147 in 2010 reflecting an increase in mastectomy volume. Annual CPM rates did not increase over time (P = 0.7) and varied between 2.6% to 10.7%. Family history of breast cancer [OR 3.6 (1.8-7.3)] and immediate reconstruction [10.0 (5.2-19.3)] were both significantly associated with CPM. Women who underwent CPM were younger (median age CPM 49 years vs UM 52 years, P < 0.0001) but age less than 50 years was not statistically associated with increased rates of CPM. CONCLUSION: CPM rates from 2004 to 2010 at a high-volume Canadian breast cancer center did not increase over time, in contrast to trends observed in the United States.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".