Preoperative MRI of the breast and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence: Long‐term follow up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Local recurrence after breast conserving surgery is reported in 5-10% of cases. This study aims to determine if preoperative MRI is associated with reduced IBTR rates in the longer term and evaluate IBTR rates of a high risk (TN and Her-2 positive) subgroup in those receiving MRI or not. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2005, patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing BCS and radiation were identified. Primary endpoint was IBTR rate. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 470 cases: 27% underwent MRI and 73% did not. Median follow-up was 97 months. Overall 10-year IBTR rate was 3.6%. There was no significant difference in IBTR rate at 10 years between those receiving MRI or not (1.6% vs. 4.2% (P = 0.37). The TN and Her-2 positive combined subgroup had a higher IBTR rate than all others (9.8% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.001). In the group without MRI, the IBTR rate of the high risk group was 11.8% compared to 1.8% in the remainder (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: With 10-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in IBTR rate whether preoperative MRI is performed versus not. The high risk population showed an increased IBTR rate, this was more marked in those who did not receive MRI.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".