Consensus Statement on Tumour Bed Localization for Radiation after Oncoplastic Breast Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oncoplastic surgery (ops) is becoming the new standard of care for breast-conserving surgery, leading to some challenges with adjuvant radiation, particularly when accurate tumour bed (tbd) delineation is needed for focused radiation (that is, accelerated partial breast irradiation or boost radiation). Currently, no guidelines have been published concerning tbd localization for adjuvant targeted radiation after ops. Methods: A modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus by a panel of 20 experts in surgical and radiation oncology at the Canadian Locally Advanced Breast Cancer National Consensus Group and in a subsequent online member survey. Results: These are the main recommendations:■ Surgical clips are necessary and should, at a minimum, be placed along the 4 side walls of the cavity, plus 1-4 clips at the posterior margin if necessary.■ Operative reports should include pertinent information to help guide the radiation oncologists.■ Breast surgeons and radiation oncologists should have a basic understanding of ops techniques and work on "speaking a common language."■ Careful consideration is needed when determining the value of targeted radiation, such as boost, in higher-level ops procedures with extensive tissue rearrangement. Conclusions: The panel developed a total of 6 recommendations on tbd delineation for more focused radiation therapy after ops, with more than 80% agreement on each statement. All are summarized, together with the corresponding evidence or expert opinion.
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".