Patient-Reported Outcomes following Breast Conservation Therapy and Barriers to Referral for Partial Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the self-reported aesthetic outcome of breast conservation therapy in a generalized sample of patients, and to describe potential barriers to referral for partial breast reconstruction. METHODS: Consecutive breast conservation therapy patients completing radiotherapy over a 1-year period at a regional cancer center were identified. Eligible patients were contacted by means of mail/e-mail and invited to participate. Participants completed the BREAST-Q breast conservation therapy module along with a questionnaire examining feelings about breast reconstruction. Multiple regression analysis was performed using the satisfaction with breasts scale as the dependent variable. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 185 of 592 eligible participants (response rate, 31.3 percent; mean age, 61 years) an average of 38 months after lumpectomy. The mean score for the BREAST-Q satisfaction with breasts scale was 59 of 100. Younger age (p = 0.038), lumpectomy reexcision (p = 0.018), and lumpectomy at a nonacademic center (p = 0.026) were significantly associated with lower satisfaction. Bra size, months from lumpectomy, and tumor quadrant/size were not significantly associated with satisfaction (p > 0.05). The most common statements regarding reconstruction were "I don't feel the need for it" (60.0 percent), "I don't like the thought of having breast implants" (22.7 percent), and "I don't want any more surgeon/doctor visits" (22.2 percent). Before lumpectomy, only 1.6 percent had a consultation for reconstruction, and only 22.7 percent were aware of this option. If offered, 33.1 percent of patients would have attended this consultation. CONCLUSION: There is an unmet demand for partial breast reconstruction, with an opportunity to advocate and increase awareness on behalf of patients undergoing breast conservation therapy.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".