Indications for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To reach a consensus about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in unilateral breast cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: There has been a substantial increase in the number of North American women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing a therapeutic mastectomy and a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) either simultaneously or sequentially. The purpose of this project was to create a nationally endorsed consensus statement for CPM in women with unilateral breast cancer using modified Delphi consensus methodology. METHODS: A nationally representative expert panel of 19 general surgeons, 2 plastic surgeons, 2 medical oncologists, 2 radiation oncologists, and 1 psychologist was invited to participate in the generation of a consensus statement. Thirty-nine statements were created in 5 topic domains: predisposing risk factors for breast cancer, tumor factors, reconstruction/symmetry issues, patient factors, and miscellaneous factors. Panelists were asked to rate statements on a 7-point Likert scale. Two electronic rounds of iterative rating and feedback were anonymously completed, followed by an in-person meeting. Consensus was reached when there was at least 80% agreement. RESULTS: Our panelists did not recommend for average risk women with unilateral breast cancer. The panel recommended CPM for women with a unilateral breast cancer and previous Mantle field radiation or a BrCa1/2 gene mutation. The panel agreed that CPM could be considered by the surgeon on an individual basis for: women with unilateral breast cancer and a genetic mutation in the CHEK2/PTEN/p53/PALB2/CDH1 gene, and in women who may have significant difficulty achieving symmetry after unilateral mastectomy. CONCLUSION: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is rarely recommended for women with unilateral breast cancer.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".