MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4247859608 · doi:10.4161/cbt.3.5.1004

Less Invasive Surgery for Colon Cancer

2004· article· en· W4247859608 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Biology & Therapy · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineColorectal cancerCancerLaparoscopic surgeryGeneral surgerySurgeryInvasive surgeryRandomized controlled trialLaparoscopyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

AbstractMinimally invasive laparoscopic surgery, when performed by experienced surgeons, is a safe and effective alternative to standard open surgery for most patients with cancer that is confined to the colon. That is the main finding of a seven-year international study, which will be published in the May 13 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center is the largest New York City-area contributor to the study.The study -- the first and largest of its kind -- involves 872 patients with colon cancer. It addresses concerns raised in the early 1990s about higher rates of colon cancer recurrence after laparoscopic surgery. Those concerns resulted in policies recommending that laparoscopic colon surgery not be performed until clinical studies showed it was effective in cancer patients.The randomized study -- headed by the Mayo Clinic and under the direction of Dr. Heidi Nelson, involving 48 medical centers in the U.S. and Canada -- compared rates of complications, cancer recurrence, length of time patients were cancer-free, and the overall survival in both laparoscopic and traditional patients. Patients who had been diagnosed with potentially curable colon cancer were randomly assigned to undergo either the minimally invasive laparoscopic procedure or the standard surgery and were followed for several years to check for cancer recurrence.ç"This study confirms that in the majority of patients with colon cancer that the laparoscopic method is a reasonable treatment alternative to the traditional large incision surgical method," says Dr. Richard L. Whelan, chief of the section of colon and rectal surgery at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia and associate professor of surgery at Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons. "It is important to note that laparoscopic colon surgery should not be used for patients whose cancer extends to areas beyond the colon. Importantly, the study also makes the point that laparoscopic colon resections should only be done by surgeons with considerable laparoscopic experience."The study demonstrates that the minimally invasive approach offers patients short-term recovery benefits such as a briefer hospital stay and an earlier resumption of bowel activity. Study principals listed the following additional findings and patient benefits:Almost exact rate of recurrence in both sets of patients. The cancer returned in 160 of the 872 patients; 76 had undergone laparoscopic surgery and 84 had the standard operation.The return of the cancer in the location of the surgical wound was less than one percent in both sets of patients, occurring in two patients who had laparoscopic surgery and one patient who had standard surgery.The survival rate was almost identical -- 86 percent of patients who had undergone laparoscopic surgery were alive three years after surgery and 85 percent receiving the standard surgery were alive.Similar rates of complications during surgery and within 30 days of surgery in terms of hospital re-admissions, re-operations and deaths.Shorter hospitalization for patients who had laparoscopic surgery -- on average, five days in the hospital compared to six days for the standard surgery group.Shorter use of intravenous pain-relieving medications after surgery for the laparoscopic group -- three days versus four days. Also, briefer use of oral pain relievers -- one day for laparoscopic group compared to two days for the standard surgery group.Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery typically involves the creation of three, half-inch incisions through which a small video camera and surgical instruments are inserted. A two-inch incision is used to bring the colon out of the abdomen, cut away the portion containing cancer, then reconnect the two healthy parts and put the colon back inside the abdomen. With standard surgery, an incision of six to eight inches or longer is required for opening the abdomen to perform the operation.The use of minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery began in the 1980s for removal of the appendix and gallbladder. The success of those procedures made surgeons think the technique could provide equal benefit for removal of colon cancer. In 1990, surgeons began performing minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer but stopped in 1994 because of concerns about increased recurrence of cancer at the surgery wound site. It was not known whether laparoscopic surgery provided the same extent of abdominal exploration and information about cancer in the lymph nodes as standard surgery or whether the laparoscopic technique changed the pattern of cancer cell spread.The National Cancer Institute (NCI) funded this comparison study as a top priority clinical research project. The study was coordinated by the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) in conjunction with other National Cancer Institute Cooperative Groups.This year in the United States about 100,000 people will be diagnosed with colon cancer. More than 90 percent of them will be told they need surgery to remove all or part of the colon or large intestine to get rid of the cancer.For more information contact: Office of Public Affairs; NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia; Tel: 212.305.5587; Fax: 212.305.8023

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 candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,407
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,684

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
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)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,103
Tête enseignante GPT0,380
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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

En bref

Citations8
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Biology & TherapyMême sujetColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207