Effect of post-mastectomy radiation therapy on survival in breast cancer with lymph nodes micrometastases: a meta-analysis and systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Axillary management of patients with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) has evolved, especially with the implementation of precision radiotherapy techniques that have resulted in a significant reduction in treatment-related toxicities, but it is unclear whether post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) improves survival outcomes in breast cancer with lymph nodes micrometastases (BCLNMM, that is T0, T1 ~2NmiM0). Our study is to systematically evaluate the effect of PMRT on survival in breast cancer with lymph nodes micrometastases. Methods A literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective studies related to PMRT versus non-post-mastectomy radiotherapy (non-PMRT) in the adjuvant treatment of ESBC in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI and other databases. R package meta software was used to perform meta-analyses with hazard ratio (HR). Newcastle Ottawa scale was selected for quality assessment. The review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024562444). Results 10 relevant studies were screened, all of which were retrospective studies. The difference in overall survival (OS) was not statistically significant (HR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.81 ~ 1.04; Z = 1.35, P = 0.177). The difference in breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) between the PMRT group and the non-PMRT group was not statistically significant HR = 1.18, 95%CI: 0.94 ~ 1.48; Z = 1.41, P =0.160). The difference in disease-free survival (DFS) was statistically significant (HR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.23 ~ 1.00; Z = 1.96, P =0.049). The difference in local recurrence free survival (LRRFS) was also not statistically significant (HR = 0.50, 95%CI: 0.11 ~ 2.26, P = 0.190). The difference in distant-metastasis free survival (DMFS) was not statistically significant (HR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.22 ~ 1.35, P = 0.356). Conclusions Despite the tendency of PMRT in BCLNMM to improve DFS, OS, BCSS, LRRFS, and DMFS showed no benefit, therefore, PMRT should be used with caution in BCLNMM. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , identifier CRD42024562444.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".