A Systematic Review of Active Treatment Options in Patients with Desmoid Tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic review to determine the optimal treatment options in patients with desmoid tumours who have declined observational management. METHODS: A search was conducted of the medline and embase databases (1990 to September 2012), the Cochrane Library, and relevant guideline Web sites and conference materials. RESULTS: One systematic review and forty-six studies met the preplanned study selection criteria; data from twenty-eight articles were extracted and analyzed. For local control, three studies reported a statistically significant difference in favour of surgery plus radiotherapy (rt) compared with surgery alone, and one study did not; two studies reported the lack of a statistical difference between surgery plus rt and rt alone in maintaining local control. Multivariate risk factors for local recurrence included positive surgical margins and young patient age. Single-agent imatinib led to a progression-free survival rate of 55% at 2 years and 58% at 3 years. Methotrexate plus vinblastine led to a progression-free survival rate of 67% at 10 years. Significant toxicities were reported for all treatment modalities, including surgical morbidity, and rt- and chemotherapy-related toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who have declined observational management, the local control rate was higher with surgery plus rt than with surgery alone. However, the additional rt-related complications should be considered in treatment decision-making. Surgery, rt, and systemic therapy are all reasonable treatment options for patients with desmoid tumours.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".