OPAR: A Randomized Trial of Partial Breast Irradiation in Five Fractions Once Daily for Early Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous studies suggest that external-beam partial breast irradiation (PBI) delivered twice a day can lead to increased adverse cosmesis (AC). The objective of our trial was to determine whether two regimens for PBI given once daily over 1 week resulted in acceptable AC to inform a phase III trial. METHODS: Patients age ≥50 years with invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ, ≤3 cm in size treated by lumpectomy with negative axillary nodes were randomly assigned to external-beam PBI of 30 Gy or 27.5 Gy, each given in five fractions once daily. The primary outcome was AC (fair or poor) by photographic assessment at 2 years. Secondary outcomes included AC assessed by nurse at 2 years, by patient self-assessment at 3 years, and late toxicity. On the basis of a 17% risk of AC with whole-breast irradiation, the upper bound of a two-sided 90% CI, 23% was set as the tolerance margin (OPAR, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02637024). RESULTS: In total, 142 patients were randomly assigned to 30 Gy and 139 to 27.5 Gy. The median follow-up was 5 years. The mean age was 65 years, and the mean tumor size was 1.2 cm. Both schedules met acceptability criteria by photographic assessment (AC, 12.1% [90% CI, 8.2 to 17.6] for 30 Gy and 15.2% [90% CI, 10.8 to 21.1] for 27.5 Gy) and by nurse assessment. AC by patient self-assessment exceeded the 90% CI for the 30 Gy regimen. At 5 years, 16 (11.3%, 90% CI, 7.6 to 16.4) patients treated with 30 Gy and eight (5.8%, 90% CI, 3.3 to 9.9) patients treated with 27.5 Gy were observed to have grade 2 or more late toxicity. CONCLUSION: According to the study design, 30 Gy and 27.5 Gy resulted in acceptable cosmetic outcomes. In light of recent studies, a lower dose was chosen for the phase III 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".