MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042393456 · doi:10.3747/co.27.6059

Tumour Response 3 Months after Neoadjuvant Single-Fraction Radiotherapy for Low-Risk Breast Cancer

2020· article· en· W3042393456 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David Tiberi, Peter Vavassis, David H. Nguyen, Marie‐Christine Guilbert, A. Simon-Cloutier, Pierre‐André Dubé, Mai‐Kim Gervais, Lucas Sidéris, Guy Leblanc, Tarek Hijal, M Dufresne, Michael Yassa

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerRadiation therapyBreast-conserving surgeryStage (stratigraphy)Neoadjuvant therapyOncologyClinical endpointAdjuvantInternal medicineSurgeryClinical trialCancerMastectomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Standard treatment for early-stage invasive breast cancer (bca) consists of breast-conserving surgery and several weeks of adjuvant radiotherapy (rt). Neoadjuvant single-fraction rt is a novel approach for early-stage bca. We sought to investigate the effect of delaying surgery after neoadjuvant rt with respect to the rate of pathologic response (pr). Methods: Women 65 years of age or older with a new diagnosis of stage i luminal A bca were eligible for inclusion. A single 20 Gy dose to the primary breast tumour was given, followed by breast-conserving surgery 3 months later. The primary endpoint was the pr rate assessed by microscopic evaluation using the Miller-Payne system. Results: To date, 10 patients have been successfully treated. Median age of the patients was 72 years (range: 65-84 years). In 8 patients, neoadjuvant rt resulted in a tumour pr with median residual cellularity of 3%. No immediate rt complications other than mild dermatitis were noted. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a method for delivering single-fraction rt that can lead to a high level of pr in most patients. Continued accrual to this study and subsequent trials are needed to determine the feasibility, safety, and role of this novel technique in the management of early-stage bca.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207