MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389134878 · doi:10.1038/s41416-023-02503-8

Risk-reducing mastectomy and breast cancer mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant: an international analysis

2023· article· en· W4389134878 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelly Metcalfe, Tomasz Huzarski, Jacek Gronwald, Joanne Kotsopoulos, Raymond H. Kim, Pål Møller, Tuya Pal, Amber M. Aeilts, Andrea Eisen, Beth Y. Karlan, Louise Bordeleau, Nadine Tung, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, Dana Zakalik, Christian F. Singer, William D. Foulkes, Fergus J. Couch, Susan L. Neuhausen, Charis Eng, Ping Sun, Jan Lubiński, Steven A. Narod, Lea Velsher, Aletta Poll, Ellen Warner, Jeanna McCuaig, Susan Randall Armel, Howard M. Saal, Linda Steele, Edmond G. Lemire, Kim Serfas, Leigha Senter, Kevin Sweet, Seema Panchal, Carey A. Cullinane, Joanne L. Blum, Daniel Rayson, Teresa Ramón y Cajal, J.S. Dungan, Robert Fruscio, Stefania Zovato, Stephanie A. Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of TorontoRoyal University HospitalUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreMcGill UniversityNorth York General HospitalJuravinski Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentrePublic Health OntarioWomen's College Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWomen's College HospitalCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineHazard ratioMastectomyOncologyCancerInternal medicineProphylactic MastectomyConfidence intervalGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) is offered to women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant, however, there are limited data on the impact on breast cancer mortality. METHODS: Participants were identified from a registry of women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. We used a pseudo-randomised trial design and matched one woman with a RRM to one woman without a RRM on year of birth, gene, and country. We estimated the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dying of breast cancer in the follow-up period. RESULTS: There were 1654 women included; 827 assigned to the RRM arm and 827 assigned to the control arm. After a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, there were 20 incident breast cancers (including 15 occult cancers) and two breast cancer deaths in the RRM arm, and 100 incident breast cancers and 7 breast cancer deaths in the control arm (HR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.05-1.35; p = 0.11). The probability of dying of breast cancer within 15 years after RRM was 0.95%. CONCLUSIONS: In women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant, RRM reduces the risk of breast cancer, and the probability of dying of breast cancer is low.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations39
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207