MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766390923 · doi:10.21873/anticanres.12024

Survival Analysis of Patients with Breast Cancer Undergoing a Modified Radical Mastectomy With or Without a Thoracic Paravertebral Block: a 5-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial

2017· article· en· W2766390923 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Manoj K. Karmakar, Winnie Samy, Anna Lee, Jia Wei Li, Wing Cheong Chan, Phoon Ping Chen, Ban C. H. Tsui

Bibliographic record

VenueAnticancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChinese University of Hong KongAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleCanadian Anesthesia Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerHazard ratioConfidence intervalSurgeryRandomized controlled trialMastectomyInternal medicineUrologyCancerAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This 5-year prospective follow-up of women randomized to general anesthesia (GA) with or without a thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) examined the risk of local recurrence, metastasis and mortality after breast cancer surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 180 patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy were randomized to one of three study groups: standardized GA only; GA with a single-injection TPVB (s-TPVB) and placebo paravertebral infusion after surgery for 72-h; and GA plus with continuous TPVB (c-TPVB) for 72-h postoperatively. Cox proportional models were used to assess the effect of TPVB on long-term outcomes. Equivalence testing was used to help interpret the results. RESULTS: The incidence [95% confidence interval (CI)] of cancer recurrence, metastatic spread and all-cause mortality was 2.3% (0.7-5.4%), 7.9% (4.6-12.6%) and 6.8% (3.6-11.2%), respectively. Four women had cancer recurrence and had metastatic spread. Compared to the GA-only group, the risk of metastatic spread was not different from that of GA with s-TPVB [hazard ratio (HR)=1.11, 95% CI=0.32-3.83) nor from that with GA plus c-TPVB (HR=0.79, 95% CI=0.21-2.96) (p=0.88). Compared to the GA-only group, the risk of mortality was similarly not different from that of the two other groups (HR=2.57, 95% CI=0.66-9.92; and HR=0.66, 95% CI=0.11-3.97, respectively, p=0.15). CONCLUSION: Although the original study was underpowered to properly address long-term outcomes, the results of this analysis suggest that TPVB, administered whether as a single-injection or continuous infusion during the perioperative period, had little to no appreciable effect on local recurrence, metastasis or mortality after breast cancer surgery.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnticancer ResearchSame topicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune ResponseFrench-language works237,207