Primary Angiosarcoma of the Breast: A Single-Center Retrospective Study in Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the rarity of primary angiosarcoma of the breast, optimal management is based on expert opinion. The aim of this study was to review all primary angiosarcomas of the breast obtained from a single center in terms of clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment, and survival outcomes. From 1997 to 2020, 15 patients with primary angiosarcoma of the breast underwent either mastectomy or wide excision. We analyzed the clinicopathologic data to assess disease-free survival and overall survival. Fifteen women with primary angiosarcoma of the breast were identified. The mean age at diagnosis was 33 years (range: 14–63 years). The overall mean tumor size was 7.7 cm (range 3.5–20 cm). Upon histological grading, there were three cases of low grade, five intermediate grade, six high grade, and one unidentified grade. The five-year disease-free survival rate was 24.4%, and the five-year survival rate was 37.2%. The survival rate of the low-grade patient group was statistically higher than that of the intermediate- or high-grade patient groups (p = 0.024). Primary angiosarcoma of the breast is a rare aggressive tumor characterized by high grade and poor outcome. Histologic grade appears to be a reliable predictor of survival. There are no standard treatment guidelines; thus, optimal R0 surgical resection remains the best approach. The roles of neoadjuvant, adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiotherapy remain unclear.
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".