Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation Using 5 Daily Fractions: A Prospective, Phase 2, Multicenter Trial of Cosmetic Outcomes and Toxicity—ACCEL Final Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the cosmetic degradation and toxicity for an accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) prescription delivered in 5 fractions over 1 week and compared the outcomes with those of whole breast irradiation (WBI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The trial was a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 prospective cohort study. Eligible women 50 years of age or older with estrogen receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative invasive ductal carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ after breast-conserving surgery received 27 Gy in 5 daily fractions of APBI. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of 2-year cosmesis using the RAPID trial's WBI arm as the control arm. A global consensus cosmetic score using a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer rating scale score of excellent, good, fair, or poor for each patient at baseline and 2 years was generated by a panel of 5 radiation oncologists using photographs of treated and untreated breasts. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019, 298 eligible women were enrolled. By the 2-year follow-up, 76 patients had been lost or withdrawn and 3 had died, resulting in 219 patients available for complete, 2-year photographic cosmetic evaluation. The median follow-up for all participants was 4.7 years (IQR, 3.8-5.5 years). No patient had a fair or poor cosmetic score at the 2-year evaluation. Cosmesis was better or unchanged for 97% of patients and worse for 3% (excellent to good), and no cosmetic failures occurred. The confidence intervals were 0.88 (0.86-0.90) and 1.00 (0.99-1.00) for the RAPID and ACCEL trials, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cosmetic degradation with 5 daily treatments of the ACCEL trial's APBI intervention is noninferior to the WBI arm of the RAPID trial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".