New Insight for Axillary De-Escalation in Breast Cancer Surgery: “SoFT Study” Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The SOUND study demonstrated that an axillary de-escalation may be sufficient in locoregional and distant disease control in selected early breast cancer (EBC) patients. To establish any preoperative variables that may drive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) omission, a study named sentinel omission risk factor (SOFT) 1.23 was planned. Methods: A single-center retrospective study from a prospectively maintained database was designed, aiming at underlying preoperative prognostic factors involved in sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis (lymph node involvement (LN+) vs. negative lymph node (LN−) group). Secondary outcomes included surgical room occupancy analysis for SLNB in patients fulfilling the SOUND study inclusion criteria. The institutional ethical committee Area Territoriale Lazio 2 approved the study (n° 122/23). Results: Between 1 January 2022 and 30 June 2023, 160 patients were included in the study and 26 (%) were included in the LN+ group. Multifocality, higher cT stage, and larger tumor diameter were reported in the LN+ group (p = 0.020, p = 0.014, and 0.016, respectively). Tumor biology, including estrogen and progesterone receptors, and molecular subtypes showed association with the LN+ group (p < 0.001; p = 0.001; and p = 0.001, respectively). A total of 117 (73.6%) patients were eligible for the SOUND study and the potential operating room time saved was 2696.81 min. Conclusions: De-escalating strategies may rationalize healthcare activities. Multifactorial risk stratification may further refine the selection of patients who could benefit from SLNB omission.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".