Unwarranted imaging for distant metastases in patients with newly diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ and stage I and II breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In 2012, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) released a Choosing Wisely Top Five list that included a recommendation against ordering advanced imaging tests to screen for metastases among asymptomatic patients with early breast cancer. Our provincial breast cancer staging guideline was subsequently updated. We report on the use of unwarranted bone scanning (BS), computed tomography (CT), nonbreast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) among women diagnosed with stage 0–II breast cancer in Alberta in 2011–2015. Methods: The cohort was retrospectively ascertained from the Alberta Cancer Registry. We used additional provincial data sources to obtain information about diagnostic imaging tests completed from biopsy to surgical date plus 4 months. The reason for each BS, CT, MRI and PET was abstracted. We calculated the frequency of advanced imaging tests completed for routine metastatic screening. Results: Of 10 142 patients included, 2887 (28.5%) had at least 1 advanced imaging test completed for routine metastatic screening. Of these 2887 patients, 438 (15.2%) had a follow-up BS, CT, MRI or PET, and 28 patients (1.0%) had a nonbreast imageguided biopsy. Use of routine advanced imaging tests did not change clearly over time. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate persistent use of advanced imaging tests for routine metastatic screening among patients with stage 0–II breast cancer despite the release of the ASCO Choosing Wisely recommendations and the update of our provincial breast cancer staging guideline. Investigation of strategies for guideline translation to improve upon value-based care of patients with early breast cancer is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".