MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P5-08-13: Phyllodes tumours of the breast: The British Columbia cancer agency experience

2017· article· en· W2593748288 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Matos Correia Rodrigues, PT Truong, L. Weir, Knowling Ma, E. Wai

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerUnivariate analysisMastectomyPopulationProportional hazards modelCancerRadiation therapyInternal medicineSurgical marginSurgeryOncologyMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Phyllodes tumours (PT) of the breast are uncommon fibroepithelial lesions for which optimal management remains unclear. This population-based study reports treatment and outcomes for patients with PT and evaluates characteristics that influence outcome. Methods Data were analysed on 183 patients with newly diagnosed PT referred to the BC Cancer Agency from 1999-2014. Follow-up was obtained from chart and death records and letters to general practitioners. Five-year Kaplan-Meier (KM) local recurrence (LR) and survival were compared between cohorts with benign (n=83), borderline (n=50) and malignant PT (n=49) histology. Subtype was unknown in 1 patient who did not receive surgery due to severe comorbidity. Univariate analysis was performed using Cox regression modeling. Results Median follow-up was 65 (range 0.5-197) months. Median age was 48 (range 14–87) years. Median tumour size was 4 (range 1-23) cm. Heterologous sarcomatous differentiation was seen in 15 and malignant epithelial transformation in 11 patients. Local excision was performed in 163 (89%) and mastectomy in 19 (10%) patients. Margin status after local excision were: negative (>1mm, n=121, 74%), close (≤1mm, n=21, 13%), positive (tumour touching ink, n=20, 12%), or unknown (n=1, 1%). Margin status after mastectomy were negative (n=14, 74%) or close (n=5, 26%). Tumour borders were pushing (n=62, 34%), intermediate (n=22, 12%), infiltrative (n=38, 21%) or unknown (n=60, 33%). Eleven patients with malignant PT received radiation therapy as part of initial treatment. In these cases median tumour size was 8 cm and heterologous sarcomatous differentiation was present in 46% compared to 4 cm and 16% in malignant cases who did not receive RT. LR occurred in 16 cases (5 benign, 4 borderline and 7 malignant). Distant metastases (DM) occurred in 7 patients with malignant PT leading to 6 cause specific deaths. Five-year KM outcomes among women with benign, borderline, and malignant PT were: LR 6% vs 9% vs 21%, P=0.131; overall survival 96% vs 100% vs 82%, P=0.002; and disease free survival 94% vs 91% vs 67%, P<0.001. DM-free and cause specific survival at 5 years for malignant cases were 82% and 88% respectively. Five-year KM LR among women with negative vs close vs positive margins were 8% vs 6% vs 37%, P<0.001. Corresponding rates for intermediate vs pushing vs infiltrative borders were 6% vs 6% vs 33%, P=0.006. On univariate analyses, large tumour size, postmenopausal status, malignant classification, necrosis, positive margins, and infiltrative borders were factors associated with increased risk of any type of relapse (all P≤0.014). Positive margins and infiltrative tumour border were associated with increased LR (all P≤0.006), and the latter remained significant in exploratory analyses after adjusting for margin status and PT classification. Advanced age at diagnosis and large tumour size were predictors of DM (all P≤0.001). Conclusion In this population-based series, 5-year outcomes among women with PT are comparable to those reported in the literature. Exploratory analysis suggests that infiltrative tumour borders may be used in conjunction with margin status to assess LR risk. While close margin was not associated with increased LR, re-excision is warranted for cases with positive margins. Citation Format: Rodrigues MF, Truong PT, Weir LM, Knowling MA, Wai ES. Phyllodes tumours of the breast: The British Columbia cancer agency 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 P5-08-13.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicBreast Lesions and CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207