MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972904597 · doi:10.32768/abc.201963136-140

Cross Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Technique; A Good Choice for Tumors Located Far From Nipple Areola Complex

2019· article· en· W2972904597 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Kaviani, Amir Ashraf‐Ganjouei, Sanaz Zand, Ahmad Elahi, Mahtab Vasigh, Hamid Ahmadi, Marzieh Zanganeh, Samira Rahmani, Rémy Salmon

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Breast Cancer · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOncoplastic SurgeryBreast cancerBreast surgeryAreolaInclusion and exclusion criteriaQuadrant (abdomen)CircumferenceSurgeryBreast-conserving surgeryMastectomyGeneral surgeryRadiologyCancerInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although various Oncoplastic Breast Surgery (OBS) techniques have been introduced for various sizes of the breast and locations of tumors , surgeons are still faced with serious challenges for the tumors which have developed in special anatomic parts of the breast. A good instance of these challenges is with the tumors located far from the Nipple Areola Complex (NAC) especially in the upper inner quadrant. We aimed to assess the application of the newly introduced OBS technique (Cross Technique) for tumors in these locations. Methods: The data of 95 patients who were suffering from breast cancer and operated with the Cross method were assessed in this prospective survey. Data was gathered regarding demographic variables, the size, location, and pathologic characteristics of tumors as well as the patients' BMI, breast circumference, and cup size. The patients were recruited to the study according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the study protocol which was approved by the research deputy surgery department in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The data was then presented in a descriptive method.Results: Nighty-five patients underwent oncoplastic breast surgery using the Cross method in a span of time from November 2015 to May 2018. The patients had a mean age of 48.2 (ranging from 25 to 70 years) as well as ta wide range of breast circumferences and cup sizes (70 to 95 for the breast circumferences and A to E for the cup size). Clear surgical margins were obtained in 93 cases according to the permanent pathology reports. Complications were seen in 5 patients (2 slight hematoma and three ischemic skin flaps) all of which were managed conservatively. The most common histologic types of tumors were insitu and invasive ductal carcinoma (DCIS-IDC). The mean tumor size was 22.7 mm with a standard deviation of 9.2mm and most of the tumors were positive for estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR). In the surgery of axilla, an average of six lymph nodes were excised while 22 patients were found out to have axillary lymph node involvement.Conclusion: Not only is the Cross method is not only a reliable choice for tumors located in the upper inner quadrant (UIQ), but it can also be applied safely for the tumors in upper outer quadrant (UOQ) and upper central part of the breast, although the best application for the technique is the tumors located far from the nipple areola complex.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Breast CancerSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207