MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229920342 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-33599/v1

Implications of Oncoplastic Breast Surgery on Radiation Boost Delivery in Localized Breast Cancer

2020· preprint· en· W4229920342 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Gladwish, Carly Sauve, Giulio DiDiodato, Jessica Conway, Christiaan Stevens, Matthew Follwell, Tiffany Tam, Julia Skliarenko, Jesse McLean, Renee Hanrahan

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast-conserving surgeryBreast cancerRadiation therapyMastectomySurgerySurgical marginSeromaRetrospective cohort studyCancerOncologyRadiologyInternal medicineComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background:Oncoplastic partial mastectomy (OPM) is a technique utilized to improve aesthetic and survivorship outcomesin patients with localized breast cancer. This technique leads to breast tissue rearrangement, which can have an impact on target definition for boost radiotherapy (BRT). The aim of this study was to determine if the choice of surgical technique independently affected the decision to deliver a radiation boost.Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients treated between January 2017 and December 2018. We selected consecutive patients based on surgical procedure; 50 undergoing standard breast conserving surgery and 50 having had an OPM. The primary outcome was average treatment effect (ATE) of surgery type on reception of BRT, accounting for patient age, tumor grade, lymphovascular space invasion, margin status and ER status as potential confounding variables. Secondary outcomes included ATE of surgery type on the time to reception of radiotherapy and incidence of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). The ratio of boost seroma volume to pathologic tumor size was also compared between the two groups. Treatment effects regression adjustment and inverse-probability weighted analysis was used to estimate ATEs for both primary and secondary outcomes.Results: Median age was 64 years (range 37 – 88). The median tumor size was 1.5 cm (range 0.1 – 6.5). The majority of patients were ≤ stage IIA (78%), invasive ductal subtype (80%), LVSI negative (78%), margin negative (90%) and ER/PR +ve (69%). Overall, surgical technique was not associated with differences in the proportion of patients receiving BRT (ATE 6.0% (95% CI -4.5, 16.0)). There were no differences in delays to radiation treatment between the two groups (ATE 32.8 days (95% CI -22.1, 87.7)). With a median follow-up time of 419 days (range 30 – 793), there were only 5 recurrences, with 1 case of IBTR in each group. There was no difference in the ratio of seroma volume to tumor size between the two groups (p=0.38).Conclusions: OPM did not affect the decision to offer localized BRT following standard whole breast radiotherapy, or significantly affect treatment times or radiation volumes. The decision to offer OPM should include a multi-disciplinary approach.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207