Role of Primary Tumour Resection and Addition of Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy in the Management of Advanced Colorectal Cancer with Inoperable Metastasis: A Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:To analyze the impact of primary tumour resection on treatment outcomes in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) and inoperable metastases at diagnosis in combination with optimal systemic therapy. Methods:A retrospective study was carried out in four hospitals in Valencia (Spain) including all consecutive patients diagnosed between 1/2009 and 12/2010 of advanced CRC with inoperable metastasis and treated with a fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy regimens with or without bevacizumab (B). Treatment outcomes were compared between patients undergoing or not primary tumour resection. Results:A total of 112 patients met inclusion criteria: 62 patients underwent resection of the primary tumour (Group 1) and 50 were treated with exclusive chemotherapy (Group 2). Globally, patients in group 2 presented more disfavorable characteristics. Forty-five (72%) and 31 (62%) patients received chemotherapy with bevacizumab respectively. Overallresponse rate(ORR) were 67% in Group 1 and 56% in Group 2. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in progression free survival (PFS) (12 vs. 10 months; p =0.11) and overall survival (OS) (27 vs. 22 months; p 0.1). B regimens increased ORR (73% vs. 42%; p = 0.003) and PFS (12 vs. 11 months; p = 0.019) but not OS. Complications were higher in the group of patients without primary tumour resection, particularly when associated to B regimens. Conclusions:Primary tumour resection offers no survival gain for patients with advanced CRC and inoperable metastases. Benefits of adding Bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy were similar in both groups, but it increases the risk of complications in non-resected patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".