Palliative Laparoscopic Resections for Stage IV Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Issues surrounding the safety and efficacy of palliative laparoscopic resections for patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer have not been explicitly examined in the literature. This article describes our experience with laparoscopic procedures for patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer and compares their perioperative outcomes to a contemporaneous group of patients with clinically curable (Stages I-III) disease. Methods: A prospective database of laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer performed between 1991 and 2002 was reviewed. Data regarding patient demographics, perioperative morbidity and mortality, operative times, conversion rates, and length of stay were extracted. Statistical analysis included chi-squared and Student'st-tests as required andP≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 375 cases were identified, of these 49 (13 percent) underwent laparoscopic palliative resections while 326 (87 percent) patients had resections for cure. When comparing palliative to curative procedures, there were no differences in intraoperative (4 percentvs. 9 percent) or postoperative complications (14 percentvs. 12 percent), perioperative mortality (8 percentvs. 4 percent), or length of hospital stay. Patients with Stage IV disease had largertumors (5.4 ± 2.3 cmvs. 4.6 ± 2.6 cm,P= 0.04) which contributed to an increased rate of conversion (22 percentvs. 11 percent,P= 0.05) with most conversions secondary to tumor fixation or bulk (64 percent) preventing determination of resectability. Conclusions: A palliative laparoscopic resection is a safe and feasible option and presents acceptable morbidity and mortality in patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer. Importantly, in this difficult group ofpatients, our results compare favorably with those from previously published series of open procedures.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".