Cytoreductive surgery followed by intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective Phase II study was to analyze morbidity and mortality of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion (IPHP) in the treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies. METHODS: A total of 205 patients (50 with peritoneal mesothelioma, 49 with pseudomyxoma peritonei, 41 with ovarian cancer, 32 with abdominal sarcomatosis, 13 with colon cancer, 12 with gastric cancer, and 8 with carcinomatosis from other origins) underwent 209 consecutive procedures. Four patients underwent the intervention twice because of disease relapse. There were 70 men and 135 women. Mean age was 52 years (range, 22-76 yrs). CRS was performed by using peritonectomy procedures. IPHP through the closed abdomen technique was conducted with a preheated (42.5 degrees C) perfusate containing cisplatin + mitomycin C or cisplatin + doxorubicin. RESULTS: Major morbidity rate was 12%. The most significant complications were 23 anastomotic leaks or bowel perforations, 4 abdominal bleeds, and 4 sepses. Operative mortality rate was 0.9%. On logistic regression model multivariate analysis, extent of cytoreduction (odds ratio [OR], 2.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-6.40) and dose of cisplatin for IPHP > or = 240 mg (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.24-7.90) were independent risk factors for major morbidity. Ten patients presented with Grade 3 to 4 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: CRS + IPHP presented acceptable morbidity, toxicity, and mortality rates, all of which support prospective Phase III clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".