A contemporary analysis of morbidity and outcomes in cytoreduction/hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemoperfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risks and benefits of cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CS/HIPEC) continue to be debated by the oncology community. A retrospective analysis of contemporary data (2003-2011) was performed to provide objective information regarding surgical morbidity, mortality, and survival for patients undergoing CS/HIPEC at a comprehensive cancer center. While procedure-associated morbidity was comparable to other major surgical oncology procedures, there was no operative or 30-day mortality and 60-day mortality was 2.7%. Increasing numbers of bowel resections were found to correlate to an increased incidence of deep surgical site infections (including abscess and enterocutaneous fistula) and need for reoperation which was in turn associated with a decreased overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Five-year OS rates varied by site of tumor origin and histology (disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis [91.3%], Mesothelioma [80.8%], Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma [38.7%], and Colorectal Adenocarcinoma [38.2%]). With an acceptable morbidity and mortality rate, CS/HIPEC should be included as an effective treatment modality in the multidisciplinary care of select patients with peritoneal metastases.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".