Effect of Surgical Margin Status on Survival and Site of Recurrence After Hepatic Resection for Colorectal Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of surgical margin status on survival and site of recurrence in patients treated with hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. METHODS: Using a multicenter database, 557 patients who underwent hepatic resection for colorectal metastases were identified. Demographics, operative data, pathologic margin status, site of recurrence (margin, other intrahepatic site, extrahepatic), and long-term survival data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: On final pathologic analysis, margin status was positive in 45 patients, and negative by 1 to 4 mm in 129, 5 to 9 mm in 85, and > or =1 cm in 298. At a median follow-up of 29 months, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year actuarial survival rates were 97%, 74%, and 58%; median survival was 74 months. Tumor size > or =5 cm, >3 tumor nodules, and carcinoembryonic antigen level >200 ng/mL predicted poor survival (all P < 0.05). Median survival was 49 months in patients with positive margins and not yet reached in patients with negative margins (P = 0.01). After hepatic resection, 225 (40.4%) patients had recurrence: 21 at the surgical margin, 56 at another intrahepatic site, 82 at an extrahepatic site, and 66 at both intrahepatic and extrahepatic sites. Patients with negative margins of 1 to 4 mm, 5 to 9 mm, and > or =1 cm had similar overall recurrence rates (P > 0.05). Patients with positive margins were more likely to have surgical margin recurrence (P = 0.003). Adverse preoperative biologic factors including tumor number greater than 3 (P = 0.01) and a preoperative CEA level greater than 200 ng/mL (P = 0.04) were associated with an increased risk of positive surgical margin. CONCLUSIONS: A positive margin after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases is associated with adverse biologic factors and increased risk of surgical-margin recurrence. The width of a negative surgical margin does not affect survival, recurrence risk, or site of recurrence. A predicted margin of <1 cm after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases should not be used as an exclusion criterion for resection.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".