Clinical outcomes in breast angiosarcoma patients: A rare tumor with unique challenges
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast angiosarcoma (AS) accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers. The goal of this study was to determine patient outcomes in radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast (RAAS) and sporadic AS. We evaluated patterns of recurrence and predictors of breast AS survival. METHODS: Patients with pathologically confirmed AS from 1994 to 2014 referred to Mount Sinai Hospital/Princess Margaret Cancer Centre were included. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), clinicopathologic characteristics, patterns of recurrence and factors predictive of survival. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used for OS and DFS. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were included: 6 with sporadic AS and 20 with RAAS. Median follow-up was 24 months. Five-year OS for RAAS and sporadic subgroups were 44% and 40%, respectively (P = ns). Five-year DFS for RAAS and sporadic subgroups were 23% and 20%, respectively (P = ns). Overall recurrence rate was 67% with median time to recurrence of 11 months. Age, tumor depth, margin status, and tumor size were not statistically significant predictive factors for OS and DFS. DISCUSSION: Breast AS is associated with poor survival and high recurrence rates. Prognosis may be mainly determined by its aggressive biology. Referral to tertiary care centers for multimodality treatment is recommended.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it