Metachronous colorectal cancer risk for mismatch repair gene mutation carriers: the advantage of more extensive colon surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical management of colon cancer for patients with Lynch syndrome who carry a mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutation is controversial. The decision to remove more or less of the colon involves the consideration of a relatively high risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) with the impact of more extensive surgery. OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare the risks of metachronous CRC for patients with Lynch syndrome undergoing either segmental or extensive (subtotal or total) resection for first colon cancer. DESIGN: Risk of metachronous CRC was estimated for 382 MMR gene mutation carriers (172 MLH1, 167 MSH2, 23 MSH6 and 20 PMS2) from the Colon Cancer Family Registry, who had surgery for their first colon cancer, using retrospective cohort analysis. Age-dependent cumulative risks of metachronous CRC were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Risk factors for metachronous CRC were assessed by a Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: None of 50 subjects who had extensive colectomy was diagnosed with metachronous CRC (incidence rate 0.0; 95% CI 0.0 to 7.2 per 1000 person-years). Of 332 subjects who had segmental resections, 74 (22%) were diagnosed with metachronous CRC (incidence rate 23.6; 95% CI 18.8 to 29.7 per 1000 person-years). For those who had segmental resections, incidence was statistically higher than for those who had extensive surgery (P <0.001). Cumulative risk of metachronous CRC was 16% (95% CI 10% to 25%) at 10 years, 41% (95% CI 30% to 52%) at 20 years and 62% (95% CI 50% to 77%) at 30 years after segmental colectomy. Risk of metachronous CRC reduced by 31% (95% CI 12% to 46%; p=0.002) for every 10 cm of bowel removed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Lynch syndrome with first colon cancer treated with more extensive colonic resection have a lower risk of metachronous CRC than those receiving less extensive surgery. This finding will better inform decision-making about the extent of primary surgical resection.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".