Should Adjuvant Radiation Therapy Be Systematically Proposed for Male Breast Cancer? A Systematic Review
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: Guidelines for radiotherapy in male breast cancer (MBC) are lacking. Some extrapolate the results from female breast cancer trials, while others advocate systematic adjuvant irradiation. We evaluated clinical practices and outcomes with respect to radiation therapy in MBC treated with locoregional irradiation in the adjuvant setting using a systematic literature review. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included studies with data about adjuvant radiotherapy published between 1984 and 2017 and including at least 40 patients. RESULTS: We found 29 retrospective series, 10,065 men were diagnosed with breast cancer; 3-100% (mean=54%) received adjuvant radiotherapy. Tumor size and nodal involvement were the strongest prognostic factors. Approximatively half of all cases had nodal metastases. Radiation therapy improved locoregional control in six series, overall survival in three and distant metastasis-free survival in one. CONCLUSION: MBC is diagnosed at a highly advanced stage and may be linked with poorer outcomes. Adjuvant radiation therapy must, at least, be proposed to men with positive nodes. Despite the large number of cases gathered here, arguments for radiotherapy in other prognostic subgroups (especially in pN0) may exist but are not well supported.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it