Propensity-score matched pair comparison of brachytherapy-based accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole breast Canadian hypofractionation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
65 Background: Given the initial report of the RAPID trial with greater morbidity for 3-D conformal external beam APBI [3D-APBI] vs. Canadian Hypofractionation [CHfx], a propensity-score matched-pair analysis of brachytherapy-based APBI [B-APBI] vs. CHfx was performed to assess efficacy, toxicities, and cosmesis. Methods: Early-stage breast cancer patients treated with B-APBI or CHfx were reviewed. With ≥ 1y follow-up [FU], B-APBI (n=108) pts were matched 1:1 to CHfx (n=108) by age, T-stage, nodal/ER status, endocrine or chemotherapy and laterality. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), regional recurrence (RR), distant metastasis (DM), contralateral breast cancer (CLBC), cause-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared by Kaplan-Meier (log-rank test). Toxicities were graded per CTCAE v3 and comesis per Harvard criteria. Results: Median FU was 5.7 y (1.0-17.8) for B-APBI and 2.1 y (1.0-5.7) for CHfx [p < 0.001]. Patients did not differ by match criteria. In comparing B-APBI to CHfx, median age was 69.0 vs. 70.0 [p = 0.72]; for laterality, T-stage, nodal/ER status, endocrine or chemotherapy, no significance [NS] was noted between the 2 groups [p = 0.79, 1.0, 0.60, 0.09, 0.15, and 0.16 respectively]. Comparing B-APBI to CHfx, NS was seen in 5-y actuarial rates of IBTR [1% vs. 0% p = 0.35], RR [0% both], DM [3.4% vs. 0% p = 0.25], CLBC [2.3% vs. 2% p = 0.63], CSS [94.3% vs. 100% p = 0.47], OS [87.7% vs. 88.3% p = 0.71] & DFS [97.5% vs. 100% p = 0.52]. The majority of maximal late toxicities were Gr 1-2. Of toxicities analyzed, including pigmentary changes, edema, pain, induration, volume reduction, telangiectasia, fat necrosis and seroma, only Gr 2-3 hyperpigmentation was significantly higher in the CHfx [8% B-APBI vs. 22% CHfx p = 0.017]. Good/excellent cosmesis was seen in > 93% in both groups. Conclusions: With FU of >5 yrs, B-APBI has similar efficacy and cosmesis but less morbidity vs. CHfx; the lesser toxicity of B-APBI vs. CHfx is in contradistinction to the RAPID results comparing 3D-APBI vs. CHfx. Further FU and more patients are needed to substantiate these findings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".