Clinical and patient-reported outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery from a single surgeon’s practice in a busy community hospital in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic breast surgery aims to maintain quality of life by pre-empting and mitigating against breast asymmetry while not compromising oncological effectiveness. This case series demonstrates the implementation of an effective oncoplastic surgical practice in a community hospital within Canada and shows low rates of perioperative complications as well as high levels of patient-reported outcome measures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with stage 0-3 breast cancer treated with level I and level II oncoplastic techniques by a single breast surgeon was undertaken. Patient, tumour, procedure, and outcome data were collected. Patient satisfaction was assessed with the Breast-Q questionnaire administered pre- and postoperatively. RESULTS: Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery was performed on 340 patients over a 31-month period. The average size of breast lesions was 1.8 cm, with 96 patients having lesions 2-5 cm in size and 10 patients having tumours larger than 5 cm. Thirty (8.8%) patients experienced a complication requiring intervention. The positive margin rate was 9.4%, and the completion mastectomy rate was 4.7%. Breast Q scores increased across breast satisfaction, process of care, psychosocial, physical, and sexual satisfaction domains postoperatively. CONCLUSION: This case series demonstrates the feasibility of an oncoplastic breast surgery practice in a busy community hospital in Canada. This adds to the growing body of North American data on the clinical and oncological safety of these techniques and introduces the idea of collecting patient-reported outcome measures within a Canadian population. We hope that this enables these techniques to become the standard of care in North America.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".