MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Do locoregional recurrence and survival outcomes differ in women with node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy?

2013· article· en· W2589504456 on OpenAlexaff
David Peterson, Pauline T. Truong, Betro T. Sadek, Mina Shenouda, Alphonse G. Taghian, Cheryl Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerInternal medicineProportional hazards modelOncologyMastectomyPopulationCancerGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

69 Background: Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer subtype is an adverse prognostic factor, it is unclear whether there are differences in outcomes according to the type of locoregional treatment used in this population. This study compared locoregional recurrence and survival outcomes in women with node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer treated with Breast Conserving Therapy (BCT) versus Modified Radical Mastectomy (MRM). Methods: Independent datasets from the BC Cancer Agency (BCCA) and the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) were pooled and analyzed. Study subjects included 748 patients between 2003-2009 with pT1-2, N0, M0 Her2+ breast cancer, treated with BCT or MRM. Standard clinico-pathologic factors were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier locoregional recurrence (LRR), breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between cohorts treated with BCT vs. MRM. Multivariable analysis (MVA) with Cox regression modeling was performed to evaluate the prognostic significance of type of locoregional treatment on outcomes. Results: Median follow-up time was 4.2 years for BCCA and 6.0 years for MGH. Comparison of clinico-pathologic factors according to type of locoregional treatment found that patients treated with MRM had higher proportions of grade 3 histology (69% vs. 60%, p = 0.004) and PR-negative disease (56% vs. 44%, p = 0.008) and lower rates of endocrine therapy (51% vs. 64%, p <0.001) and herceptin therapy (50% vs. 57%, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences between BCT and MRM groups in 5-year Kaplan-Meier LRR (2.0% vs. 1.7%, p=0.88), BCSS (97.2% vs. 96.1%, p=0.70), and OS (95.5% vs. 93.4%, p=0.19). On MVA, BCT and MRM were associated with similar LRR, BCSS, and OS. The only factor associated with reduced OS was T2 disease (HR 3.1, p=0.01). Conclusions: In this multi-institutional study, no significant outcome differences were found among women with T1-2 N0, HER2-positive breast cancer treated with BCT or MRM. Breast conserving therapy is safe in this population, providing high rates of locoregional control and survival equivalent to mastectomy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→