Changes in Reoperation After Publication of Consensus Guidelines on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The 2014 publication of the Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology (SSO-ASTRO) Consensus Guideline on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery recommended a negative margin definition of no ink on tumor. Adoption of this guideline would represent a major change in surgical practice that could lower the rates of reoperation. Objective: To assess changes in reoperation rates after publication of the SSO-ASTRO guideline. Data Sources: A systematic search of Embase, PREMEDLINE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science for biomedical literature published from January 2014 to July 2019 was performed. This search was supplemented by web searches and manual searching of conference abstracts. Study Selection: Included studies compared the reoperation rates in preguideline vs postguideline cohorts (actual change), retrospectively applied the SSO-ASTRO guideline to a preguideline cohort (projected change), or described the economic outcomes of the guideline. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study characteristics and reoperation rates were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Odds ratios (ORs) were pooled by random effects meta-analysis. Analyses were stratified by study setting (institutional or population) and preguideline accepted margins. The economic outcomes of the guideline were summarized narratively. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds ratios for postguideline vs preguideline reoperation rates. Results: From 1114 citations, 30 studies (with 599 016 participants) reported changes in reoperation rates. Studies included a median (range) of 487 (100-521 578) participants, and 20 studies were undertaken in the US, 6 in the UK, 3 in Canada, and 1 in Australia. Among 21 studies of actual changes, pooled ORs showed a statistically significant reduction in reoperation, with an OR lower in institution-based studies than in population-based studies (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.52-0.74] vs 0.76 [95% CI, 0.72-0.80]; P = .04 for subgroup differences). Among 9 studies of projected changes, the pooled OR was lower for preguideline margin thresholds of 2 mm or more compared with 1 mm (OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.40-0.56] vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.79-0.91; P < .001 for subgroup differences). Projected changes were likely to overestimate actual changes. Six studies that estimated the postguideline economic outcome found the guideline to be potentially cost saving, with a median (range) saving of US $3540 ($1800-$25 650) per woman avoiding reoperation. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found a decrease in reoperation rates after the publication of the SSO-ASTRO guideline; this reduction was greater at an institutional level than a population level, the latter reflecting the differences in guideline adoption between centers. These early outcomes may be conservative estimates of longer-term implications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.133 | 0.550 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".