MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6968082207 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.13988258

Omitting Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery in Elderly Low-Risk Patients

2024· article· en· W6968082207 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyLumpectomyIncidence (geometry)Breast cancerAdjuvant radiotherapyEndocrine systemRandomized controlled trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is the standard treatment for most women with early breast cancer. RT of the breast applied after BCS significantly reduces the risk for local recurrence (LR). In recent times, the incidence of LR after BCS has been steadily decreasing, due to increasing detection of smaller cancers, improved surgical techniques and effective adjuvant systemic therapy. Also, it is known that older patients with smaller, hormone receptor (HR) positive tumors have low risk for LR. Therefore, it is obvious that many patients at low risk for LR will not relapse even without RT and can be cured with surgery and endocrine therapy alone.Several studies were conducted with the goal to identify a group of patients whose risk of LR was so low that any benefit of RT would be negligible and outweighed by the risk associated with the treatment. In the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) trial of women 70 year of age and older treated with lumpectomy and tamoxifen, the addition of RT did not change survival with over 10 years of follow-up (67% vs 66%), but significant difference in loco-regional recurrence-free survival (RFS) was seen (98% vs 90% at 10 years). Similar results were seen in recent published study of Scottish trial PRIME II . The PRIME II trial included patients age 65 years or older with small (≤ 3 cm), ER positive tumors treated with BCS and endocrine therapy and randomly assigned to RT or not. The 10-year results demonstrated a decrease in ipsilateral LR from 9,8% to 0,9% with addition of RT and no differences in overall survival (80,8% vs 80,7%).However, clinico-pathologic factors are limited in their ability to accurately predict the risk of breast cancer relapse, or the benefit from adjuvant RT. The increasing understanding of tumor biology, with the use of immunohistochemistry analysis and genomic assays enabled a better identification of patients with low-risk breast cancer. Canadian study (LUMINA trial) analyzed omission of RT after BCS in low-risk luminal A-subtype breast cancer patients. Study included women 55 years of age and older, who undergone BCS for tumor smaller than 2 cm, grade 1 or 2, luminal A- subtype. After BCS patients received only endocrine therapy without RT. After 5-year follow-up, LR was observed in 2,3% of the patients.Currently, there is a growing interest in evaluating de-escalation of RT for low-risk breast cancer patients. Ongoing clinical trials such as EXPERT, IDEA, PRECISSION, PRIMETIME, DEBRA, DBCG RT and TAILOR RT trial evaluate selective omission of adjuvant RT for low-risk early breast cancer patients based on genomic and immunohistochemistry-based biomarkers. Meanwhile, omission of RT has already become a standard option for selected cases of low-risk, ER positive breast cancers stage I, after BCS in older patients. Similar to the European recommendations, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines allow omission of RT in women 70 years of age and older with T1, N0, ER positive breast cancers after BCS, treated with endocrine therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→