Which target volume should be considered when irradiating the regional nodes in breast cancer? Results of a network-meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): Radiation treatment to the regional nodes results in an improvement in survival in breast cancer according to a meta-analysis of randomized trials. However, different volumes were targeted in these studies: breast or chestwall only (WBI/CWI), inclusion of the medial supraclavicular region and axillary apex (MS + WBI/CWI) or additional inclusion of the internal mammary chain (IM + MS + WBI/CWI). The benefit of treating the medial supraclavicular region and axillary apex compared to tangential breast or chestwall irradiation only remains unclear. MATERIALS/METHODS: A literature search was conducted identifying trials for adjuvant radiation volumes in nodal irradiation after breast surgery and axillary treatment. Events and effect sizes were extracted from the publications for the endpoints of overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and loco-regional control (LRC). A network meta-analysis was performed using MetaXL V5.3 with the inverse variance heterogeneity model. RESULTS: We found two randomized studies (n = 5836) comparing comprehensive nodal irradiation to sole breast treatment as well as one randomized (n = 1407) and one prospective cohort study (n = 3377) analysing the additional treatment of the internal mammary chain against sole local and supraclavicular and axillary apex radiation. Compared to WBI/CWI alone the treatment of IM + MS + WBI/CWI (HR = 0.88; CI:0.78-0.99; p = 0.036) results in improved OS unlike MS + WBI/CWI (HR = 0.99; CI:0.86-1.14; p = 0,89). These results are confirmed in BCSS: IM + MS + WBI/CWI (HR = 0.82; CI:0.72-0.92; p = 0.002) and MS + WBI/CWI (HR = 0.96; CI:0.79-1.18; p = 0.69). PFS is significantly improved with the treatment of MS + WBI/CWI (OR = 0.83; CI:0.71-0.97; p = 0.019). Both nodal treatment volumes improve LRC (MS + WBI/CWI OR = 0.74; CI:0.62-0.87; p = 0.004 and IM + MS + WBI/CWI OR = 0.60; CI:0.43-0.86; p < 0,001). Yet only the internal mammary nodes provide a benefit in DMFS (MS + WBI/CWI HR = 0.97; CI:0.81-1.16; p = 0.74 and IM + MS + WBI/CWI HR = 0.84; CI:0.75-0.94; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Expanding the radiation field to the axillary apex and supraclavicular nodes after axillary node dissection reduced loco-regional recurrences without improvement in overall and cancer-specific survival. A prolongation in survival due to regional nodal irradiation is achieved when the internal mammary chain is included. This derives from a reduction in distant metastasis.
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 | 0.025 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".