MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362722662 · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2023.101236

Targeted Intraoperative Radiation Therapy during Breast-Conserving Surgery for Patients with Early Stage Breast Cancer: A Phase II Single Center Prospective Trial

2023· article· en· W4362722662 on OpenAlexaffabout
Constanza Martínez, Sarkis Meterissian, Asma Saidi, Francine Tremblay, Ari N. Meguerditchian, David Fleiszer, Christine Lambert, M. David, Valérie Panet-Raymond, Bassam Abdulkarim, Tarek Hijal

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Radiation Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerBreast-conserving surgeryRadiation therapyLymphovascular invasionSingle CenterProspective cohort studySeromaBiopsyMastectomyCancerSurgeryInternal medicineRadiologyMetastasisComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Patients with early stage breast cancer (ESBC) are conventionally treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by whole-breast external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). The emergence of targeted intraoperative radiation therapy (TARGIT) with Intrabeam has been used as a therapeutic alternative for patients with risk-adapted ESBC. Here we present our radiation therapy toxicities (RTT), postoperative complications (PC), and short-term outcomes of the prospective phase II trial at the McGill University Health Center. Methods and Materials: Patients aged ≥50 years with biopsy-proven hormone receptor-positive, grade 1 or 2, invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast, cT1N0, were eligible for the study. Enrolled patients underwent BCS followed by immediate TARGIT of 20 Gy in 1 fraction. Upon final pathology, patients with low-risk breast cancer (LRBC) received no further EBRT, and those with high-risk breast cancer (HRBC) received further 15 to 16 fractions of whole breast EBRT. HRBC criteria included pathologic tumor size >2 cm, grade 3, positive lympho-vascular invasion, multifocal disease, close margins (<2 mm), or positive nodal disease. Results: A total of 61 patients with ESBC were enrolled in the study; upon final pathology, 40 (65.6%) had LRBC, and 21 (34.4%) had HRBC. The median follow-up was 3.9 years. The most common HRBC criteria were close margins in 66.6% (n = 14) and lymphovascular invasion in 28.6% (n = 6). No grade 4 RTT were observed in either group. The most common PC were seroma and cellulitis for both groups. The rate of locoregional recurrence was 0% in both groups. The overall survival in LRBC was 97.5% and in HRBC 95.2% with no significant differences. Deaths were nonbreast cancer related. Conclusions: In patients with ESBC undergoing BCS, the use of TARGIT shows low rates of RTT and PC complications. Moreover, our short-term outcomes show no significant difference at 3.9 years median follow-up for locoregional recurrence or overall survival between groups of patients receiving TARGIT alone or TARGIT followed by EBRT. Of all patients, 34.4% required further EBRT, most commonly due to close margins.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Radiation OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207