Prognostic significance of mesenteric tumor nodules in patients with stage III colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor nodules are occasionally found in adjacent mesentery of colorectal cancer specimens and are felt to reflect a worse prognosis. The clinical significance of mesenteric tumor nodules was investigated. METHODS: A review of 786 patients with stage III colorectal cancer referred between 1995 and 1999 was undertaken. TNM staging was standardized by considering mesenteric nodules separately and not assigning them to T or N categories. Survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: Mesenteric tumor nodules were found in 116 (14.8%) patients: 48 (41.4%) with colon cancer and 68 (58.6%) rectal cancer. Mean age at surgery was 63 years. Adjuvant chemotherapy was given to 84.8% of colon cancer patients. Two (2.9%) rectal cancer patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and 63 (92.6%) received adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy and/or radiation). In the cohort with mesenteric nodules, the median time to progression was 23.1 months, the median 5-year disease-free survival was 35%, and the median overall survival (OS) was 47.9 months, with 44% OS at 5 years. In the 19 (16.4%) patients with mesenteric nodules and no lymph nodes the 5-year OS was 60% (SEER stage II 5-year survival 82.5%), whereas in 97 patients who were lymph node-positive the 5-year OS was 40% (SEER 5-year survival stage IIIc 44.3%; stage IV 8.1%). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to SEER survival data, the presence of mesenteric nodules appears to worsen the prognosis of any T/N0 disease to that of overall stage III disease. Mesenteric nodules with any T/N+ disease had prognosis similar to that of stage IIIC disease, but the prognosis was better than M1 disease. .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".