Abstract GS6-01: Surgical treatment after neoadjuvant systemic therapy in young women with breast cancer: Results from a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Young women are more likely than older women to present with higher stage breast cancer (BC) and may benefit to a greater extent from downstaging with neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST). Young age is also associated with greater likelihood of pathologic complete response (pCR). Using a large prospective cohort of young women with BC, we investigated response to neoadjuvant therapy, eligibility for breast conserving surgery (BCS) pre- and post-NST, and surgical treatment. Methods The Young Women's Breast Cancer Study (YWS) is a multi-center cohort of women diagnosed with BC at age ≤40, that enrolled 1302 patients from 2006 to 2016. Disease characteristics and treatment information were obtained through medical record and central pathology review. Surgical recommendation before and after NST, conversion from BCS borderline/ineligible to BCS eligible, surgery, documented reasons for choosing mastectomy (MTX) among BCS eligible women, and final pathologic response were independently reviewed. Results Among 1302 women enrolled in YWS, 801 (62%) presented with unilateral stage I-III breast cancer and 317(40%) received NST. Median age was 36 years old (22-40). Pre-NST, 85/317 (27%) were BCS eligible, 49 (15%) were borderline, and 169 (53%) were not eligible (16 inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), 88 large tumor size /cosmetic, 48 diffuse calcifications, and 83 multicentricity). Among the 218 patients who were BCS ineligible/borderline pre-NST, 82 (38%) became eligible for BCS after NST. 4 patients who were BCS eligible pre-NST became ineligible. Of all patients eligible for BCS post-NST (n=163), 80 (49%) attempted BCS, 74 (93%) of whom were successful, and 83 (51%) chose MTX. Reasons for choosing MTX included: patient preference (38/83 (46%)), BRCA or TP53 mutation (31 (37%)), family history (3 (4%)), unknown (11 (13%)). On final pathology, 75 (24%) patients had pCR. Among patients who achieved a pCR, 48 (64%) underwent MTX, fewer than half (21/48 (44%)) were for anatomic indications (IBC, large tumor at diagnosis, diffuse calcifications, multicentric disease). Conclusion While NST doubled the proportion of young women eligible for BCS, nearly half chose MTX regardless of response to NST, mostly for personal preference or high-risk preventative reasons. These data highlight that surgical decision making among young women with breast cancer is often driven by factors beyond extent of disease and clinical response to therapy. Table 1.Clinical-pathologic characteristicsCharacteristicsNumber%Pre NST surgical recommendation BCS eligible8526.8Borderline4915.5BCS ineligible16953.3Unknown144.4Clinical Response Complete20263.7Partial9229.0Stable30.9Progressing72.2Unknown134.1Pathologic Response pCR (No invasive or DCIS)7524No pCR24276Post NST Surgical recommendation BCS eligible16351.4BCS ineligible14445.4Unknown103.2Attempted surgery BCS8025.2MTX23674.1Unknown20.6Final Surgery BCS7423.3MTX24176unknown20.6 Citation Format: Kim HJ, Dominici L, Rosenberg S, Pak LM, Poorvu PD, Ruddy K, Tamimi R, Schapira L, Come S, Peppercorn J, Borges V, Warner E, Vardeh H, Collins L, King T, Partridge A. Surgical treatment after neoadjuvant systemic therapy in young women with breast cancer: Results from a prospective cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS6-01.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".