Outcomes in the surgical treatment of low rectal cancer: does neoadjuvant treatment equalize results?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The choice of operation for potentially curable cancer of the low rectum (≤6 cm from the anal verge) is usually between ultra low anterior resection (ULAR) or abdominal perineal excision (APE). Numerous studies have suggested improved results with ULAR. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data for a series of patients undergoing surgical treatment for low rectal cancer at three Melbourne hospitals. The patient details and outcomes were compared between those undergoing APE and ULAR. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-eight of 213 patients with potentially curable low rectal cancer were treated by either ULAR (n = 82) or APE (n = 116). Overall survival and local recurrence rates were similar, although there was a trend towards improved results for ULAR. Preoperative radiation was received by 89 (76.7%) of APE patients and 44 (53.7%) of ULAR patients (P < 0.0005). CONCLUSION: In this study there was no statistical difference in the oncological results between APE and ULAR. However, there was a trend to improved result for ULAR in spite of a strikingly higher rate of neoadjuvant radiation in the APE group. It is possible that enhanced use of preoperative radiation has a beneficial role in the management of low rectal cancer treated by conventional APE.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".