Oncologic safety of breast conserving surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer: A retrospective multi-institutional cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The recent ACOSOG Z11102 trial demonstrated low recurrence rates with breast conserving surgery (BCS) in women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancers (MIBC). Questions remain regarding the oncologic safety of BCS in women with MIBC receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent BCS following NAC for stage I-III breast cancer from 2012 to 2021 at two academic centers. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to provide estimates for recurrence and survival outcomes. MIBC was defined as ≥2 foci of malignancy. RESULTS: A total of 544 patients were included; 29.4% (n = 160) ER+/HER2-, 17.7% (n = 96) ER+/HER2+, 18.2% (n = 99) ER-/HER2+, and 34.7% (n = 189) with ER-/HER2-disease. Overall, 80.5% (n = 438) had unifocal breast cancer while 19.5% (n = 106) had MIBC. Of patients with MIBC, 90.6% (n = 96) had multifocal and 9.4% (n = 10) had multicentric disease. Pathologic complete response was achieved in 41.1% of patients with MIBC versus 41.5% of patients with unifocal disease (p = 0.94). At a median follow-up of 55 months (IQR 32-83); 4.8% of patients in the unifocal group and 4.7% of patients in the MIBC group had had a local recurrence (p = 0.97). There was no difference in 5-year local recurrence-free survival (p = 0.92), recurrence-free survival (p = 0.06), or overall survival (p = 0.07) between the groups. CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of women undergoing BCS post-NAC, there was no significant difference in in breast tumor recurrence or survival outcomes between patients with unifocal disease and those with MIBC.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".