Abstract P3-14-13: Total mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancer: A ten-year Canadian single institution experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fear of high local recurrence rate associated with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) following total mastectomy for breast cancer might be a contributing factor to the low rate of immediate reconstruction performed in Quebec. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the oncological safety of total mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction. A retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent total mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction at the University of Montreal Hospital Center between 2006 and 2015 was performed. 375 patients (420 cases) met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 51.5 years (25-77). The median follow-up was 45.6 months (0.4-115.2). Clinical cancer staging was done according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) criteria. 349 cases (83.1%) were classified as Stage < cIIb and 71 cases (16.9%) as ≥ cIIb. 73 patients (19.5%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 113 (30.1%) received adjuvant chemotherapy and 91 (21.7%) received postoperative radiotherapy. Only 4 patients (3.5%) had a significant delay in receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and 4 patients (4.4%) had a delay in initiation of radiotherapy. In total, there were 12 (2.6%) local recurrences and 29 (7.7%) distant recurrences. The results of this study demonstrate a low rate of local recurrence that is comparable to the current litterature. Total mastectomy in association with immediate breast reconstruction is therefore an oncologically safe approach for the treatment of breast cancer and should be more widely adopted by medical centers throughout Quebec. Citation Format: Younan RJ, Al Khaldi M, Maalouf C, Guez M, Boulva K, robidoux A, Nassif E, Poljicak M, BouMerhi J, Bernier C, Patocskai E. Total mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancer: A ten-year Canadian single institution experience [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-14-13.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".