Evaluation of Cosmetic Outcomes of the Bilateral Reduction Mammoplasty Following the Breast Conserving Surgery and Unilateral Radiotherapy in Patients With Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast asymmetry and deformity are some of the consequences of unilateral breast-conserving surgery in patients with breast cancer, which is also associated with adverse psychological effects. The treatment protocol for these patients may include radiation therapy and surgical procedures, which can affect the cosmetic results in the breast. In this study, 20 patients with breast cancer who underwent reduction mammoplasty surgery after tumor removal were studied. Depending on the location and size of the tumor, it was removed with appropriate margins, and mammoplasty was performed for all patients. After surgery, the patients were referred to a radiotherapist for adjuvant treatment. The breast in which the tumor was located received radiotherapy (case), and the healthy breast was left without adjuvant treatment (control). We evaluated the cosmetic results in these patients 6 months after radiotherapy. The mean age and BMI of the patients were 46.45 years and 26.42 kg/m2, respectively. Thirteen patients were reported to have no comorbidities (65%), and four patients had diabetes (20%). Two of them had hypertension (10%), and one of them had diabetes and hypertension (10%). In seven patients, the tumor was located in the left breast, and the rest in the right. None of these parameters was significantly associated with the cosmetic results of the surgery. Surgical complications were reported in three patients with erythema (15%), in one patient with infection (5%), and in none of the patients without complications (0%). There was no significant difference in the scar score between the control and case groups. Given the negligible association between quantitative cosmetic outcomes in case and control breasts and the similar mammoplasty procedure with the same removal volume on both sides, it seems that different tissue weights need not be removed to achieve symmetry. The Vancouver Scar Score for the case and control sides showed a reduction in scar formation with radiotherapy. However, since the therapeutic dose of radiation is associated with systemic and local complications (erythema, infection, etc.), prophylactic local radiotherapy and brachytherapy could be considered in a risk-benefit study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".