Quality of life after surgery in individuals with familial colorectal cancer: does extended surgery have an adverse impact?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the optimum surgical treatment of patients presenting with colorectal cancer with known or suspected genetic cancer syndromes. Although standard segmental resection may be curative, a high risk of metachronous malignancy leads many to advocate extended surgery. The current study was designed to assess whether or not extended surgery adversely impacts quality of life compared to segmental surgery. METHODS: Records at The Royal Melbourne Hospital Family Cancer Clinic were searched in order to identify patients with suspected high risk familial colon cancer. Patients who underwent surgery were identified and mailed two Standardized Quality of Life Questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CR38). RESULTS: Fifty respondents met the inclusion criteria. None of the 15 patients whose primary operation was an extended procedure developed a metachronous cancer. Seventeen of the 35 (48.67%) who had an initial segmental resection had subsequent surgery for metachronous cancer. At the time of the questionnaire, 27 had extended surgery and 23 had segmental operations. The overall global health status and quality of life was very similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that there is a high rate of metachronous cancer for patients undergoing segmental resection for hereditary colon cancer. Quality of life following either segmental or extended resection is not significantly different. Consequently, it is reasonable to recommend extended surgery for most patients with high risk hereditary colon cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".