MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056000859 · doi:10.3747/co.21.1929

Use of Chemotherapy and Radiofrequency Ablation to Treat Colorectal Cancer Metastases: A Retrospective Review of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre over 7 Years

2014· review· en· W2056000859 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nana Boame, Gillian Gresham, Derek J. Jonker, Guillaume Martel, Fady Balaa, Tim Asmis

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerRadiofrequency ablationCancerChemotherapyRetrospective cohort studyGeneral surgeryOncologySurgeryAblationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Almost 40% of people diagnosed with colorectal cancer will die from their disease, most with metastatic spread. When feasible, hepatic resection offers the greatest probability of cure for isolated liver metastases, but there are barriers to curative resection. Those barriers include the extent and distribution of lesions within the liver, extrahepatic disease, comorbidities, and age. Chemotherapy is often administered before or after resection with the intention of improving disease-free and overall survival. The timing of chemotherapy (adjuvant vs. neoadjuvant vs. perioperative) for patients undergoing potentially curative hepatic resection of metastasis of colorectal cancer origin is controversial. METHODS: Colorectal cancer patients with liver metastases resected at The Ottawa Hospital between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2009, were identified, and their clinical records were retrospectively reviewed. Patients receiving intraoperative radiofrequency ablation (rfa) as part of their management were included. Factors associated with overall and disease-free survival were evaluated. RESULTS: The 168 identified patients (57% men, 43% women) had a median age of 63 years (range: 31-84 years). After hepatectomy, 10% had positive resection margins. Intraoperative rfa was used in 25 patients (15%). Chemotherapy was administered in the neoadjuvant (19%), adjuvant (31%), or "perioperative" (both neoadjuvant and adjuvant, 50%) setting. Use or omission of intraoperative rfa was not associated with a difference in overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.53 to 1.84; p = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients who did not receive chemotherapy, those who received chemotherapy, regardless of timing, experienced improved overall survival and disease-free survival. Use of rfa where required as an adjunct to hepatic resection appears to be effective and is not associated with worse overall 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207