MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P1-03-02: Clip placement after ultrasound guided biopsy in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy

2022· article· en· W4220826119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charlotte J. Yong‐Hing, Chisato Ito, Lauren Corke, Christine Simmons, Bethina Abrahams

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyCLIPSCancerBreast cancerMastectomySurgeryNatRadiologyGeneral surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Most breast cancers are diagnosed after an image-guided biopsy. When performed under stereotactic guidance, biopsy markers (clips) are almost always placed. In comparison, clip placement after ultrasound (US) guided biopsy is variable. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) may be administered before surgery to shrink large tumors so breast conservation therapy (BCT) instead of mastectomy can be done. After NAT, tumors may no longer be clinically palpable or visible on imaging. The clip localizes tumors so that the site can be identified and less extensive and more precise surgery can be performed. If no clip is placed at the time of biopsy, NAT is delayed and mastectomy may be required in a patient who would have otherwise qualified for BCT. Most often, a second US procedure for clip placement will be required and sometimes a second biopsy prior to NAT. International and national guidelines state that clips should be placed when the radiologist suspects the patient is a candidate for NAT. The aim of this project was to decrease the number of patients presenting to the NAT clinic at BC Cancer Vancouver Center without a clip in situ to less than 5% by the end of 2020. Methods: Ethical risk assessed using the ARECCI screening tool were minimal. Initial data included all patients who presented for NAT at BC Cancer VCC from January 2018 to January 2019 and final data was from January 2021 to March 2021 (delayed due to Covid-19 pandemic). All lower mainland health authority sites (LMMI) were surveyed in regards to whether they perform US guided breast biopsies. An online survey about specific radiologist practices was sent out to radiologists at all LMMI sites, as well as in community imaging clinics (CICs) and other health authorities in the province. Patient interviews have been conducted through BC Cancer Patient Engagement. A fee code specific to CICs in the lower mainland, which perform over 60% of the US guided breast biopsies, to encourage and support appropriate clip use was proposed to the British Columbia ministry of health and was implemented in July 2019. Education was targeted at other community sites where surgeons were engaged to explain the impact on clinical outcomes when clips are not used. An online webinar about clip placement was developed in conjunction with a local surgeon and was hosted by the Canadian Society of Breast Imaging. Results: 19 LMMI sites perform US breast biopsies. 25% of radiologists surveyed stated anticipation of NAT as a reason for clip placement and 21% were aware of the national guidelines for clip placement. Initial data included 121 patients who presented for NAT clinic in our time frame and 77 were included in our analysis (received NAT and clip status was known). Final data included 33 patients who presented to the NAT clinic and 30 were include in our analysis. Before intervention, 49% of patients considered for NAT had a clip placed at the initial biopsy. Of 50 patients who did not have a clip at initial biopsy, 21 (42%) required a clip prior to NAT. There was a 5.5 day difference in time to NAT after biopsy for patients who had clips placed initially at the time of biopsy (34.7 days) and patients who did not (40.2 days). There was no difference in mastectomy rates. After intervention, 80% of patients considered for NAT had a clip placed at the initial biopsy. Though it is difficult to quantify the clinical impact a 5.5 day delay to start of therapy may have, patient interviews indicate significant anxiety associated with the time between diagnosis and treatment. Conclusion: Targeted education on clip use with engagement of surgeons to explain the clinical implications, and development of a fee code to encourage and support appropriate use of clip placement, reduced the number of patients presenting for NAT without a clip in place. Future projects include exploring the financial costs or savings of increasing clip use. Citation Format: Charlotte J. Yong-Hing, Chisato Ito, Lauren Corke, Christine Simmons, Bethina Abrahams. Clip placement after ultrasound guided biopsy in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-03-02.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→