Reoperation for Intraluminal Rectal Cancer Recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Following curative resection for rectal cancer, approximately 5 percent of locoregional recurrences occur intraluminally, presumably because of tumor exfoliation during the initial operation. The rate of resectability, subsequent locoregional control, and survival in patients with isolated intraluminal recurrence have not been well studied. METHODS: From 1994 to 2003, nine patients (seven males; median age, 68 years) with isolated intraluminal rectal cancer recurrence were treated for cure at our center. RESULTS: Initial procedures performed were four high anterior resections and five low anterior resections for tumors having a median distance from the anal verge of 12.5 (range, 7.5-16) cm. Median resected distal margin was 2.5 (range, 1.2-4.0) cm. Original tumor staging was T2 N0 M0 in three, T3 N0 M0 in three, T3 N1 M0 in one, and T3 N2 M0 in two. Median time between primary resection and intraluminal recurrence was 21 (range, 8-53) months. Intraluminal recurrence distal to the anastomosis occurred in three of nine patients and anastomotic recurrence occurred in six of nine patients. Pathologically clear margins were obtained in all patients at the time of curative re-resection. Following re-resection, patients were followed for a mean of 30 (range, 6-59) months. No patient has developed locoregional recurrence to date or to the time of patient death. Six of nine patients are alive and disease-free with a median follow-up of 34.5 (range, 6-59) months. One patient died disease-free at 35 months. One patient died from pulmonary metastases 30 months postoperatively and another patient developed liver metastasis 11 months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic surveillance following sphincter-sparing rectal cancer resection is warranted as re-resection for intraluminal recurrence can result in locoregional control and significant disease-free survival.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".