An alternative to standard lumpectomy: a 5-year case series review of oncoplastic breast surgery outcomes in a Canadian setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is becoming the new standard of care for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). It has become increasingly popular in Europe; however, it has not yet been widely accepted in North America. This study aims to describe the experience with OPS at a Canadian tertiary care centre. Methods: This study is a retrospective case series consisting of consecutive OPS cases at a single Canadian centre, the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre in Barrie, Ontario, between 2009 and 2015. Results: A total of 275 women who consecutively underwent OPS were included. The average size of the tumour was 17 mm (standard deviation [SD] 13 mm; range 0–110 mm). The average specimen weight was 155 g (SD 146 g; range 15–1132 g). Invasive ductal carcinoma was the most common diagnosis (237 patients, 86.2%), followed by ductal carcinoma in situ (18 patients, 6.6%) and then invasive lobular carcinoma (15 patients, 5.5%). A positive margin was recorded in 37 (13.5%) patients. Immediate postoperative complications included seroma and edema (32.7%), wound infection (13.1%), hematoma (8.7%) and delayed wound healing (6.5%). A delay to adjuvant therapy due to postoperative complications occurred in 7 of 217 (3.2%) patients. The median follow-up was 18 months. There were local and distant recurrences in 9 (3.3%) and 2 (0.7%) patients, respectively. Overall survival was 99.3%. Conclusion: The findings of this study are comparable to results in the literature on OPS and demonstrate that OPS is an attractive alternative to standard lumpectomy for Canadian general surgeons who treat 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".