Multidisciplinary Approaches to Breast Cancer: An Updated Review for Healthcare Providers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer persists as the most common cancer and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in women worldwide. Its development is multifactorial, involving genetic, hormonal, and environmental risk factors. Significant global disparities in incidence and mortality exist, influenced by access to screening and advanced treatments. Aim: This article provides a comprehensive, updated review of multidisciplinary approaches to breast cancer for healthcare providers. It aims to synthesize current evidence on etiology, diagnosis, staging, and the integrated management strategies that define modern oncology care. Methods: The review synthesizes established clinical guidelines and current evidence across specialties. It details the diagnostic "triple assessment" (clinical exam, imaging, biopsy), the critical role of molecular subtyping (Luminal A/B, HER2-enriched, Basal-like), and the TNM staging system. Management strategies are explored through the lens of a multidisciplinary team, encompassing surgical, radiation, and medical oncology. Results: Treatment is highly individualized based on stage and biology. Early-stage disease is managed with curative intent using breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy, often combined with adjuvant radiotherapy, chemotherapy, endocrine, or targeted therapy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly used for locally advanced and aggressive subtypes to downstage tumors. For metastatic disease, treatment focuses on prolonging survival and quality of life with systemic therapy. The integration of targeted agents (e.g., anti-HER2, CDK4/6 inhibitors) and immunotherapy has significantly improved outcomes. Conclusion: A multidisciplinary, personalized approach is paramount for optimizing breast cancer care, improving survival, and managing treatment-related complications.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".