Cancer of the Anus Complicating Perianal Crohn's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was designed to review the clinical and pathologic findings, treatment, and outcomes of patients who have a cancer that complicates perianal Crohn's disease. METHODS: Charts of patients who had documented perianal Crohn's disease and a pathologic diagnosis of anal carcinoma were reviewed. RESULTS: There were 14 patients (6 men; mean age, 49 years) who had evidence of perianal Crohn's disease (mean, 6.9 (range, 1-20) years) before their cancer diagnosis. The diagnosis often was delayed despite increasing pain, multiple biopsies, and imaging studies. Ten patients had preoperative diagnoses of cancer; however, none of the eight magnetic resonance imaging studies were diagnostic. There were 11 adenocarcinomas (8 mucinous or colloid subtypes) and 3 squamous-cell carcinomas. Treatment included abdominoperineal resections plus chemotherapy in 12, and radiation and a defunctioning stoma in 1 patient. Of the 12 who had an abdominoperineal resection, 3 had posterior vaginectomies and rectus flap reconstructions. At last follow-up (mean, 41 (median, 22) months), five patients were alive without disease, five were alive with disease, and four had died. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should have a high level of suspicion of cancer in patients with longstanding perianal Crohn's disease who have a change in symptoms. In this series, patients who were diagnosed preoperatively and treated with multimodality therapy had better outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".