MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391481140 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102441

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) clinical practice guidance for the prevention of breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRAL): international Delphi consensus-based recommendations

2024· article· en· W4391481140 on OpenAlexaff
Henry C.Y. Wong, Matthew P. Wallen, Adrian Wai Chan, Narayanee Dick, Pierluigi Bonomo, Monique Bareham, Julie Ryan Wolf, Corina van den Hurk, Margaret I. Fitch, Edward Kai‐Hua Chow, Raymond J. Chan, Muna Alkhaifi, Belen Alonso Alvarez, Suvam Banerjee, Kira Bloomquist, Pınar Borman, Yolande Borthwick, Dominic C.W. Chan, Sze Man Chan, Yolanda Chan, Ngan Sum Jean Cheng, J. Isabelle Choi, Yin Ping Choy, Kimberly S. Corbin, Elizabeth S. Dylke, Pamela V. Hammond, Satoshi Hirakawa, Kimiko Hirata, Shing Fung Lee, Marianne Ingerslev Holt, Peter A.S. Johnstone, Yuichiro Kikawa, Deborah Walker, Haruru Kotani, Carol Kwok, Jessica Lai, Mei Ying Lim, Michael Lock, Brittany Lorden, Page Mack, Stefano Magno, Icro Meattini, Gustavo Nader Marta, Margaret L. McNeely, Tammy E. Mondry, Luís López-Montoya, Mami Ogita, Misato Osaka, Stephanie Phan, Philip Poortmans, Bolette Skjødt Rafn, Abram Recht, Agata Rembielak, Ángela Río-González, Jolien Robijns, Naoko Sanuki, Charles B. Simone, Mateusz Spałek, Kaori Tane, Luiz Felipe Nevola Teixeira, Mitsuo Terada, Mark Trombetta, Kam-Hung Wong, Katsuhide Yoshidome

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMultinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerPsychological interventionAxillary lymph nodesSentinel lymph nodeLymph nodeSurgeryCancerInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Developing strategies to prevent breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRAL) is a critical unmet need because there are no effective interventions to eradicate it once it reaches a chronic state. Certain strategies such as prospective surveillance programs and prophylactic lymphatic reconstruction have been reported to be effective in clinical trials. However, a large variation exists in practice based on clinician preference, organizational standards, and local resources. Methods: A two-round international Delphi consensus process was performed from February 27, 2023 to May 25, 2023 to compile opinions of 55 experts involved in the care and research of breast cancer and lymphoedema on such interventions. Findings: Axillary lymph node dissection, use of post-operative radiotherapy, relative within-arm volume increase one month after surgery, greater number of lymph nodes dissected, and high body mass index were recommended as the most important risk factors to guide selection of patients for interventions to prevent BCRAL. The panel recommended that prospective surveillance programs should be implemented to screen for and reduce risks of BCRAL where feasible and resources allow. Prophylactic compression sleeves, axillary reverse mapping and prophylactic lymphatic reconstruction should be offered for patients who are at risk for developing BCRAL as options where expertise is available and resources allow. Recommendations on axillary management in clinical T1-2, node negative breast cancer patients with 1-2 positive sentinel lymph nodes were also provided by the expert panel. Routine axillary lymph node dissection should not be offered in these patients who receive breast conservation therapy. Axillary radiation instead of axillary lymph node dissection should be considered in the same group of patients undergoing mastectomy. Interpretation: An individualised approach based on patients' preferences, risk factors for BCRAL, availability of treatment options and expertise of the healthcare team is paramount to ensure patients at risk receive preventive interventions for BCRAL, regardless of where they are receiving care. Funding: This study was not supported by any funding. RJC received investigator grant support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1194051).

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)0.121
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.172
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1210.172
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.418 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations32
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicLymphatic System and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207