The Role of Partial Breast Radiation in the Previously Radiated Breast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze breast cancer patients who previously had mantle-field or breast radiation (RT) followed by retreatment with external beam partial breast irradiation (EB PBI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all women with newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and partial breast irradiation between 2007 and 2017 who had undergone prior chest or breast RT. RESULTS: Of 11 patients recorded, 8 (73%) had Hodgkin lymphoma, and 3 (27%) had ipsilateral breast cancer diagnosis. Median age at initial and second diagnosis was 28 and 48 years, respectively. The lymphoma patients received a dose of 35 Gy in 16 to 20 fractions to a classic mantle-upper abdomen field. Patients with an initial diagnosis of breast cancer received whole-breast RT (2 with 50 Gy/25 fractions, 1 with 40 Gy in 16 fractions). Median time from initial to second diagnosis was 22.6 years (range, 13.5 to 32.6 y). All had early-stage (I to II) invasive ductal carcinoma and were treated with lumpectomy or repeat lumpectomy and EB PBI. Four received a dose of 45 Gy/25 fractions, 4 to 50 Gy/25 fractions, and 3 to 42.4 Gy/16 fractions. All patients received adjuvant systemic treatment. Two patients had toxicity, 1 had grade 1 induration, and the other had grade 2 fat atrophy and grade 1 fibrosis. One patient developed a contralateral breast cancer. No locoregional recurrences were reported at the median follow-up of 4.6 years (range, 0.6 to 10.5 y). CONCLUSION: EB PBI after lumpectomy seems to be a safe and effective RT treatment option for selected patients with prior RT and localized early-stage breast cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".