MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920331993 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000005569

Breast Reconstruction Following Breast Implant–Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

2019· article· en· W2920331993 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory A. Lamaris, Charles E. Butler, Anand K. Deva, Roberto N. Miranda, Kelly K. Hunt, Tony Connell, Joan E. Lipa, Mark W. Clemens

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnaplastic large-cell lymphomaBreast implantMedicineLymphomaOncologyImplantLarge cellInternal medicineSurgeryCancerAdenocarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Standard of care treatment of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) involves surgical resection with implant removal and complete capsulectomy. We report a case series of BIA-ALCL reconstruction with proposals for timing and technique selection. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed and prospectively enrolled all BIA-ALCL patients at 2 tertiary care centers and 1 private plastic surgery practice from 1998 to 2017. Demographics, treatment, reconstruction, pathology staging, patient satisfaction, and oncologic outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: We treated 66 consecutive BIA-ALCL patients and 18 (27%) received reconstruction. Seven patients (39%) received immediate reconstruction, and 11 (61%) received delayed reconstruction. Disease stage at presentation was IA (T1N0M0 disease confined to effusion or a layer on luminal side of capsule with no lymph node involvement and no distant spread) in 56%, IB in 17%, IC (T3N0M0 cell aggregates or sheets infiltrating the capsule, no lymph node involvement and no distant spread) in 6%, IIA (T4N0M0 lymphoma infiltrating beyond the capsule, no lymph node involvement and no distant spread) in 11%, and III in 11%. Types of reconstruction included smooth implants (72%), immediate mastopexy (11%), autologous flaps (11%), and fat grafting (6%). Outcomes included no surgical complications, but 1 patient progressed to widespread bone metastasis (6%); ultimately, all patients achieved complete remission. Ninety-four percent were satisfied/highly satisfied with reconstructions, whereas 6% were highly unsatisfied with immediate smooth implants. CONCLUSIONS: Breast reconstruction following BIA-ALCL management can be performed with acceptable complications if complete surgical ablation is possible. Immediate reconstruction is reserved for disease confined to capsule on preoperative positive emission tomography/computed tomography scan. Genetic predisposition and bilateral cases suggest that BIA-ALCL patients should not receive textured implants. Autologous options are preferable for implant adverse BIA-ALCL patients. Patients with extensive disease at presentation should be considered for 6- to 12-month delayed reconstruction with interval positive emission tomography/computed tomography evaluation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207