MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4233971443 · doi:10.1002/0471463736.tnmp19.pub2

Anal Cancer

2006· other· en· W4233971443 sur OpenAlexaff
Bernard Cummings

Notice bibliographique

RevueTNM Online · 2006
Typeother
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueColorectal and Anal Carcinomas
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAnal canalAnal vergeAnal cancerMedicineRectumIncidence (geometry)CancerColorectal cancerSurgeryInternal medicineMathematics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The major objectives of treatment of cancers that arise in the anal canal and perianal skin are cure and preservation of anal function. The prognosis for both survival and function deteriorates as the primary tumor enlarges, and the probability of cure diminishes as cancer metastasizes to the regional lymph nodes and to extrapelvic sites. Although the incidence of anal cancer has been increasing in many countries over the past 30 years, the relative rarity of such cancers (incidence about 0.5 to 1 per 100,000) has meant that there have been few large groups of patients in whom prognostic factors have been assessed by multivariate analysis or similar statistical techniques. In the 1987 and 1997 editions of the TNM classification, the anal canal is defined as that part of the intestine that extends from the rectum to the perianal skin (to the junction with the hair‐bearing skin). The extent of the perianal area is not defined in the manual, but, by common usage, is considered the skin within a 5‐cm radius of the anal verge. Prior to the 1987 classification, several different conventions were used to describe the anatomy of the anal region, so that comparisons of different series are often not possible. A significant change in the categorization system for primary anal canal cancers was also made in 1987, by basing classification on the measured size of the tumor. The T‐category is determined by the largest diameter of the primary carcinoma, measured in centimeters (T1–T3‐categories), except when there is direct invasion of adjacent major organs (T4‐category). Formerly, it was necessary to estimate clinically the proportion of the length or circumference of the canal involved, and whether the external sphincter was infiltrated. Perianal cancers continued to be categorized by measured size as previously. The histological classification of malignancies of the anal canal and of the perianal skin has not changed substantially over the past 30 years. The 1989 edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification System described three major subtypes of squamous‐cell cancer of the anal canal, namely large‐cell keratinizing, large‐cell nonkeratinizing (transitional), and basaloid. The view that all are variants of squamous‐cell cancer was supported by an analysis of keratin profiles. Many clinical investigators, agreeing that the prognostic value of histological subtyping is marginal, group all three subtypes as squamous‐cell or epidermoid carcinomas of the anal canal. The shift in treatment of anal canal cancer from radical surgery to primary radiation therapy, commonly combined with cytotoxic chemotherapy, allows preservation of function in many patients, and has affected assessment of prognostic features. Detailed gross and histopathological assessment of excised tissues, which formed the cornerstone of many earlier analyses, is no longer possible. It has not yet been established that all features of prognostic value in patients treated surgically are equally predictive of outcome following radiation with/without chemotherapy. In the discussion that follows, cancers of the anal canal and of the perianal skin are considered separately. All comments address the patient newly diagnosed and undergoing initial treatment, except where indicated.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,024
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,976

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0240,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,307
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTNM OnlineMême sujetColorectal and Anal CarcinomasTravaux en français237 207