Radiation after Mastectomy in High-Risk Patients: Is it Necessary?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective review of cases from 1988 through 1992 was performed examining high-risk breast cancer patients treated with modified radical mastectomy without postoperative radiation at a single institution. Locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, overall survival, and number of lymph nodes removed were examined. This was compared with recent Danish and Canadian studies. Thirty-three premenopausal node-positive breast cancer patients had a 9 per cent locoregional recurrence rate. In the Danish and Canadian studies the locoregional recurrence rates were 32 and 21 per cent. These were reduced to 9 per cent and 10 per cent respectively in the radiated arms. Our locoregional recurrence in nonradiated patients was similar to that in the radiated arms of the studies and improved when compared with recurrence in their non-radiated controls. The adequacy of the axillary lymph node dissection was examined. In the current study a median of 18 lymph nodes were recovered with only 3 per cent containing less than 12 nodes. In the Danish study a median of seven lymph nodes were removed. Similarly in the Canadian trial a median of 11 nodes were removed. With complete axillary dissection results equivalent to those of postoperative adjuvant radiation is achieved. Further randomized controlled studies with standard axillary dissections are needed before the recommendation of routine postoperative radiotherapy.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".