MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4365511941 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30040318

De-Implementation of Axillary Staging and Radiotherapy in Low-Risk Breast Cancer Patients Aged 70–79 Years from Six Italian Cancer Institutes

2023· article· en· W4365511941 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lauro Bucchi, Alessandra Ravaioli, Luigino Dal Maso, Fabio Falcini, Lucìa Mangone, Samuele Massarut, Laura Schirosi, Anna Crispo, Patrizia Vici, Silvia Franceschi

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlleanza Contro il CancroAssociazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul CancroMinistero della Salute
KeywordsMedicineLumpectomyBreast cancerRadiation therapyMastectomySentinel lymph nodeCancerOncologyOdds ratioInternal medicineSentinel nodeBreast-conserving surgeryLymph nodeGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In women aged ≥70 with low-risk breast cancer (BrC), some major international guidelines recommend against sentinel lymph node biopsy (for example, those from the Society of Surgical Oncology, U.S.) and post-lumpectomy radiotherapy (for example, those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, U.S.). We assessed the frequency of both procedures in six National Cancer Institutes (IRCCSs) in the North, the Centre, and the South of Italy. Data on tumour characteristics and treatment were obtained from each centre. Patients aged 70-79 years diagnosed with a pT1-pT2, clinically axillary lymph node-negative, oestrogen and/or progesterone receptor-positive, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative BrC between 2015 and 2020 were eligible for the study. Factors associated with the omission of the two procedures were evaluated using binary penalised logistic regression models. Axillary staging was omitted in 33/1000 (3.3%) women. After simultaneous adjustment for the centre of treatment and all other key variables, axillary staging was omitted more often in 2015-2016 vs. 2017-2020 (odds ratio (OR): 2.7; 95% CI: 1.0-7.5), in women aged 75-79 vs. 70-74 years (OR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-4.9), and in those who had mastectomy vs. breast-conserving surgery (OR: 3.3; 95% CI: 1.2-9.0). The higher the histological grade was, the less frequent were the omissions (OR for grade 3 vs. grade 1: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.0-0.7). Post-lumpectomy radiotherapy was omitted in 56/651 (8.6%) women with no significant association with age, period, tumour stage, and tumour grade. In conclusion, the omission of axillary staging and post-lumpectomy radiotherapy in low-risk older BrC patients was rare in the Italian IRCCSs. Although women included in the study cannot be considered a nationally representative sample of BrC patients in Italy, our findings can serve as a baseline to monitor the impact of future guidelines. To do that, the recording and storage of hospital-based information should be improved.

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)0.008
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.345 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→