Population-Based Assessment of the Surgical Management of Locally Advanced Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines recommend multivisceral resection for patients with locally advanced adherent colorectal cancer because it reduces local recurrence and improves survival. However, this procedure can increase morbidity compared with standard resection and may not be practiced uniformly. We performed a population-based study to examine surgical practice and outcomes among patients with locally advanced adherent colorectal cancer in the United States. METHODS: Patients who were 18 years or older and who had surgical resection for nonmetastatic, locally advanced adherent colorectal cancer from January 1, 1988, through December 31, 2002, were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry. Logistic regression was used to examine patient, tumor, and geographic factors associated with multivisceral resection. Cumulative early mortality (i.e., at 1 and 6 months after diagnosis) and 5-year survival were obtained from Kaplan-Meier estimates; adjusted risks of death were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We identified 8380 patients who underwent surgical resection for locally advanced adherent colorectal cancer, of whom 33.3% were managed with multivisceral resection. Among colon cancer patients, younger age at diagnosis, female sex, SEER region, node negativity, and left-sided tumors were independently associated with having had a multivisceral resection. Among rectal cancer patients, younger age at diagnosis and female sex were positively and statistically significantly associated with multivisceral resection, whereas receipt of neoadjuvant radiation was inversely and statistically significantly associated with multivisceral resection. Compared with standard resection, multivisceral resection was associated with improved overall survival for patients with colon (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83 to 0.96) and rectal (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.94) cancer, with no associated increase in early mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer did not receive a multivisceral resection. The geographic variation in the application of this procedure in patients with colon cancer suggests that local organizational structures and processes of care may play an important role in patient treatment and, therefore, prognosis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".