Association of GUCY2C Expression in Lymph Nodes With Time to Recurrence and Disease-Free Survival in pN0 Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The established relationship between lymph node metastasis and prognosis in colorectal cancer suggests that recurrence in 25% of patients with lymph nodes free of tumor cells by histopathology (pN0) reflects the presence of occult metastases. Guanylyl cyclase 2C (GUCY2C) is a marker expressed by colorectal tumors that could reveal occult metastases in lymph nodes and better estimate recurrence risk. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of occult lymph node metastases detected by quantifying GUCY2C messenger RNA, using the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction, with recurrence and survival in patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective study of 257 patients with pN0 colorectal cancer enrolled between March 2002 and June 2007 at 9 US and Canadian centers (7 academic medical centers and 2 community hospitals) provided 2570 fresh lymph nodes measuring 5 mm or larger for histopathology and GUCY2C messenger RNA analysis. Patients were followed up for a median of 24 months (range, 2-63 months) for disease recurrence or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to recurrence (primary outcome) and disease-free survival (secondary outcome) relative to expression of GUCY2C in lymph nodes. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (12.5%) had lymph nodes negative for GUCY2C (pN0 [mol-]), and all but 2 remained free of disease during follow-up (recurrence rate, 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8%-20.8%). Conversely, 225 patients (87.5%) had lymph nodes positive for GUCY2C (pN0 [mol+]), and 47 developed recurrent disease (20.9%; 95% CI, 15.8%-26.8%) (P = .006). Multivariate analyses revealed that GUCY2C in lymph nodes was an independent marker of prognosis. Patients who were pN0 (mol+) exhibited earlier time to recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.11-19.57; P = .04) and reduced disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.15-9.29; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Expression of GUCY2C in histologically negative lymph nodes appears to be independently associated with time to recurrence and disease-free survival in patients with pN0 colorectal cancer.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".