Use of regional nodal irradiation and its association with survival for women with high-risk, early stage breast cancer: A National Cancer Database analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The role of regional nodal irradiation (RNI) for patients with breast cancer remains controversial, particularly on the basis of nodal involvement. Using the National Cancer Database, we aimed to validate published data on whether expanding treatment fields from whole-breast irradiation (WBI) to encompass the regional nodes (WBI+RNI) affected overall survival (OS) for patients with node-positive (pN1-3) or high-risk node-negative (pN0) breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods and materials Women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2004 and 2012 who met the selection criteria for the National Cancer Institute of Canada MA.20 trial were identified and stratified by receipt of RNI. Propensity score matching was used to compare 1:1 matched pairs of patients. Five-year OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. We used multivariate logistic regression to predict receipt of WBI+RNI and a multivariable Cox model to examine associations between patients' demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics and OS using double robust estimation. Results Of 23,567 patients, 6,920 (29%) received WBI+RNI and 16,647 (71%) WBI. Median follow-up was 56 months. Use of WBI+RNI increased from 25.2% in 2004 to 32.2% in 2012 ( P < .001). Patients receiving WBI+RNI more often had negative hormone-receptor status, ≥5 cm tumors and >1 involved node, and were not privately insured. For all patients, the 5-year OS rates were 90.8% with WBI+RNI versus 92.6% with WBI ( P < .001). In the matched cohort (n = 10,922), the corresponding 5-year OS rates were 92% and 91.9% ( P = .45), respectively. On multivariate analysis, WBI+RNI did not affect OS in the matched cohort (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.17, P = .76), regardless of pathologic nodal status. Conclusions In this large retrospective analysis, use of WBI+RNI did not affect 5-year OS rates for women with high-risk, early stage breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, regardless of nodal status, which confirms the findings of the MA.20 trial.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".