MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412602208 · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2025.2324

Long-Term Locoregional Outcomes in a Contemporary Cohort of Young Women With Breast Cancer

2025· article· en· W4412602208 on OpenAlexaff
Laura S. Dominici, Yue Zheng, Tari A. King, Julia S. Wong, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Rulla M. Tamimi, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Lidia Schapira, Virginia F. Borges, Steven E. Come, Laura C. Collins, Ellen Warner, Ann H. Partridge, Shoshana M. Rosenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerHazard ratioCumulative incidenceProportional hazards modelIncidence (geometry)CohortInternal medicineProspective cohort studyCohort studyCancerMedical recordYoung adultCancer registryOncologyGynecologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age are felt to have a higher risk for locoregional recurrence (LRR) regardless of type of local therapy. Objective: To assess the long-term incidence of isolated LRR by molecular subtype in a modern multicenter cohort of young women. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study, a multicenter prospective study named the Young Women's Breast Cancer Study, enrolled 1302 women diagnosed with breast cancer at 40 years or younger from 2006 to 2016. Treatment information and incident LRR (ipsilateral breast/chest or lymph node recurrence) were self-reported on study surveys and confirmed with medical record review; molecular subtype was determined by record review. Analysis was reported from February 2023 to May 2025. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative incidence of isolated LRR was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; hazard ratios were estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: The cohort included 1135 women with stage I through III breast cancer who had a median follow-up of 10.1 years (range, 0.4-16.3 years). The age at diagnosis was younger than 30 years for 145 patients (12.8%), 31 to 35 years for 318 patients (28.0%), and 36 to 40 years for 672 patients (59.2%). There were 59 isolated local recurrences (5.2%) and 4 isolated regional recurrences (0.4%). Among patients with local therapy and subtype data available (n = 1128), 366 (32%) had luminal A-like tumors; 240 (21%), luminal B-like tumors; 231 (20%) luminal ERBB2 positive (+)-like (formerly HER2 positive); 90 (8%) ERBB2+-like; and 201 (18%) triple negative. A total of 346 women (30%) had breast-conserving therapy (BCT) (98% of whom had radiation), 296 (26%) unilateral mastectomy, and 487 (43%) bilateral mastectomy. Of women who had mastectomy, 425 (54%) had radiation. The cumulative incidence of LRR at 10.1 years by subtype was as follows: luminal A, 4.4% (range, 1.0%-6.9%); luminal B, 4.7% (range 1.8%-7.7%); luminal ERBB2+, 6.1% (range, 3.1%-8.3%); ERBB2+, 2.2% (range, 0%-6.3%); and triple negative, 6.5% (range, 4.2%-10.1%). The cumulative incidence of LRR by locoregional treatment type at 10.1 years was 6.7% after BCT (range, 4.3%-10.1%), 6.5% after mastectomy without radiation (range, 0%-7.7%), and 2.4% after mastectomy with radiation (range, 1%-4.2%). Although mastectomy with radiation was associated with the lowest risk of LRR on multivariable analysis, when examined within molecular subtype, there were no differences seen. Conclusions and Relevance: In this contemporary cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 years or younger, risk of isolated LRR was relatively low (5.6%) at a median follow-up of 10.1 years, and significant differences were not seen by tumor subtype. Concerns for long-term risk of LRR should not influence surgical decision-making with young women, irrespective of molecular subtype.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA SurgerySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207