Long-term outcomes and effects of hypofractionated radiotherapy in microinvasive breast cancer: Analysis from a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The natural history of microinvasive (T1mi) breast cancer is uncertain. The objective was to evaluate long-term local and distant recurrence rates following breast conserving surgery (BCS) in a prospective cohort of patients with T1mi compared to T1a-2 disease who received whole breast irradiation (WBI) in the context of a randomized trial of hypofractionation. METHODS: 1234 patients with T1-2 N0 breast cancer were randomized to receive adjuvant WBI of 42.5Gy in 16 daily fractions, or 50Gy in 25 daily fractions after BCS. An analysis of patients with T1mi tumors compared with T1a-2 disease was performed. Kaplan-Meier estimates of local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence, and overall survival (OS) were compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 12 years. T1mi was found in 3% (n = 38) of patients. The 10-year LR rate was 22.6% in T1mi vs. 6.9% in T1a-2 breast cancer [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.73; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.93, 7.19; p < 0.001]. The 10-year risk of distant recurrence was 5.1% for T1mi, and 12.1% for T1a-2 disease (HR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.19, 1.84; p = 0.36). Ten-year OS was 91.5% in T1mi and 84.4% in T1a-2 disease, (HR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.18, 1.30; p = 0.14). Rates of LR did not differ whether treated by hypofractionation or conventional fractionation (HR = 1.21; 95% CI: 0.35, 4.18; p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of LR was considerably higher in patients with T1mi compared to T1a-2 tumors, but OS remained very good. Future research should evaluate the utility of wider local excision and boost radiation to optimize local control for microinvasive breast cancer.
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) | 0.001 | 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".