Surgical management in phyllodes tumors of the breast: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Information is still controversial in the studies regarding the current optimal surgical management of phyllodes tumors (PTs) of the breast. Local recurrence (LR) may occur with an upgraded in the pathological grade, influencing the prognosis of patients with PT. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association of LR risk with margin status and margin width which could have significant implications on the surgical management of PT. Methods: Independent and comprehensive searches were performed by two authors through five databases including PubMed, Medline, Embase, ScienceDirect and Cochrane Library from January 1990 to October 2021. Studies investigating the association between margin width, margin status and LR rates were considered for inclusion. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software, and statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi-square test and quantified using the I2 statistic. Visual inspection of funnel plots was used to judge publication bias. Results: A total of 34 articles were included in this article, all of which with NOS scores above 5. Regardless of the PT grade, positive margin significantly increased the risk of LR [odds ratio (OR) 3.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.60–5.12]. No significant difference was found in the risk of LR between the margins <1 and ≥1 cm (OR 1.39, 95% CI: 0.67–2.92). For benign and borderline PTs, there were no significant differences of the LR risk between breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy (benign OR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.12–3.78; borderline OR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.29–4.51). While the LR risk was significantly increased by BCS for malignant PT (OR 2.77, 95% CI: 1.33–5.74). Discussion: Different surgical management strategies should be considered for different PT grades. BCS was a feasible option and margins <1 cm was not significantly associated with LR risk for all grade of PT. After BCS, benign PT with positive margin could adopt the “wait and watch” strategy with regular follow-up, while borderline and malignant PTs were expected to underwent re-excision to ensure negative margins. More studies are still needed to clarify and update the existing conclusions and improve the prognosis of PT patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".