Primary Tumor Resection in Patients Presenting With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We conducted a Canadian population-based study to assess surgical practice patterns and outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) at diagnosis. METHODS: We reviewed a provincial cancer registry for 2 years. Four hundred eleven patients presenting with mCRC were stratified by primary tumor resection status. Baseline characteristics, treatment modalities, and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Seventy percent of patients underwent resection. Resected patients were less likely to have rectal primaries (16% vs. 42%, P < or = 0.001) and had more obstructive symptoms (47% vs. 31%, P < or = 0.001) or bleeding (26% vs. 6%, P < or = 0.001). They experienced fewer tumor-related complications (4% vs. 22%, P < or = 0.001). Use of first-line chemotherapy was similar (61% vs. 58%, P = 0.54), but the resection cohort was more likely to receive doublet chemotherapy (57% vs. 36%, P < or = 0.01) and metastatectomy (10% vs. 0%, P < or = 0.0001). Among patients with rectal tumors, radiation use was comparable (63% vs. 58%, P = 0.68). Median survival was longer in the resection group (14 vs. 6 months, P < or = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients presenting with mCRC underwent primary resection. Colonic tumors, obstruction, and bleeding were associated with resection. In situ primaries conferred more complications, despite similar use of radiation in cases of rectal cancer. Unresected patients were less likely to receive doublet chemotherapy or metastatectomy, and had inferior 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".