Breast Cancer in Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study [24L]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our objective is to report pregnancy outcomes and placental histopathologic findings in women with breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study including pregnant women with a prior history of breast cancer and those with gestational breast cancer (GBC) managed at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada between 2004 and 2015. RESULTS: We identified 69 patients—47 with a prior history of breast cancer and 22 with GBC. In 21/22 cases of GBC, treatment was initiated antepartum (surgeries in 16, mean gestational age [GA] 22.5 weeks and chemotherapy in 13 [mean GA 26 weeks]). Radiotherapy was deferred until the postpartum period. There was a significant difference between groups in terms of labor induction (32.6 versus 50%, P =.045) to facilitate treatment, resulting in higher preterm birth rates (8.7% versus 63.6%, P <.0001), but no difference in GA (37.8±4.4 versus 36.3±2.0 weeks, P =.95), birthweight (3,095.2±871.2 versus 2,727±663.4, P =.43) or spontaneous vaginal deliveries (41.3% versus 59.1%). Placental histopathology was abnormal in 42.9% versus 44.4% cases. CONCLUSION: With multidisciplinary management, women with breast cancer can anticipate good pregnancy outcomes. Surgery, chemotherapy and late preterm labour induction are not associated with adverse outcomes or higher cesarean delivery rates.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".