Portal vein embolization and its effect on tumour progression for colorectal cancer liver metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRCLM) exhibiting disease progression after portal vein embolization (PVE). METHODS: Patients with CRCLM requiring PVE before hepatectomy between 2003 and 2014 were included. Clinical variables, and liver and tumour volumes determined by three-dimensional CT volumetry were assessed before and after PVE. Overall and disease-free survival data were obtained. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of tumour progression after PVE. RESULTS: Of 141 patients who underwent PVE, 93 (66.0 per cent) had tumour progression and 17 (12.1 per cent) developed new contralateral lesions. Significantly fewer patients had resectable disease in the group with disease progression than among those with stable disease: 43 (46 per cent) of 93 versus 36 (75 per cent) of 48 respectively (P = 0.001). Median survival was similar in patients with and without tumour growth after PVE: 22.5 versus 26.0 months for patients with unresectable tumours (P = 0.706) and 46.2 versus 52.2 months for those with resectable disease (P = 0.953). However, disease-free survival for patients with tumour progression after PVE was shorter than that for patients with stable disease (6.0 versus 20.2 months; P = 0.045). Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was the only significant factor associated with tumour progression in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Tumour progression after PVE did not affect overall survival, but patients with resected tumours who had tumour growth after embolization experienced earlier recurrence. A borderline response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy seemed to be associated with tumour progression after PVE.
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 | 0.001 | 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".