Expert consensus recommendations on the daily clinical use of pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a standard treatment for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) at an early stage. Given that pathological complete response is strongly associated with long-term clinical and survival benefits, the selection of appropriate treatment before and after surgery could further optimise treatment outcomes. With the emergence of immunotherapy in breast cancer, more combination treatment options are available, such as pembrolizumab, a programmed death receptor 1 inhibitor, which is approved for the perioperative treatment of stage II and III TNBC. However, the implementation of immunotherapy in perioperative settings for TNBC requires further discussion regarding patient selection and the use of different treatments in conjunction with immunotherapy. The Hong Kong Breast Cancer Foundation convened a multidisciplinary consensus panel consisting of surgeons, clinical oncologists, and medical oncologists to initiate this discussion. A modified Delphi panel was conducted, evaluating seven topics and 45 statements covering the workup and perioperative treatment of early-stage TNBC (eTNBC). The consensus statements provide guidance on determining whether a patient with eTNBC is a suitable candidate for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".