Results of en bloc resection for hepatocellular carcinoma extending to adjacent organs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To curatively resect hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with adjacent organ extension, the combined resection of these organs is inevitable. We analyzed the safety and effectiveness of en bloc resection for HCC extending to adjacent organs. METHODS: From December 2002 to May 2006, we compared the surgical outcomes of patients with HCC extending to adjacent organs with those of closely matched, randomly selected patients with HCC without adjacent organ extension. RESULTS: We included 42 patients whose HCC extended to adjacent organs and 126 patients whose HCC did not extend to adjacent organs. There was no significant difference in survival, operative morbidity or mortality between the groups. In patients with HCC extending to adjacent organs, histopathological examination of the specimen revealed true tumour invasion in 13 and adhesion in 29 patients. Those with tumour invasion were more likely to have a high incidence of capsule infiltration, microvascular invasion and early intrahepatic recurrence (≤ 1 yr after hepatectomy). The 5-year overall survival of patients with tumour invasion was 11.5%, whereas that of patients with tumour adhesion was 38.1% (p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: En bloc resection is a safe and effective therapy for HCC extending to adjacent organs. Tumour invasion to adjacent organs exhibits a more aggressive clinical behaviour and is associated with worse survival than tumour adhesion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".