Patterns of recurrence following selective intraoperative radiofrequency ablation as an adjunct to hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to analyze the patterns of recurrence following intraoperative radiofrequency ablation (RFA) combined with hepatic resection for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). METHODS: Patients undergoing liver resection (with or without RFA) for CLM were examined. Rates and patterns of disease recurrence, as well as overall survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox analyses. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients underwent liver resection for CLM (150 without and 24 with intraoperative RFA). RFA was used to treat 41 tumors (median 1.6 cm). The 3-year overall survival was 65.5% and 61.4% (adjusted HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.55-1.88). Median recurrence-free survival was 7.4 versus 12.7 months with RFA versus non-RFA, respectively (adjusted HR 1.51, 95% CI 0.94-4.42). On multivariate analysis, neither survival nor recurrence-free survival was significantly associated with RFA. In total, there were two RFA ablation zone local failures. An ablation site recurrence was the sole site in one patient (4.2%). CONCLUSION: RFA was used as an adjunct to resection in patients with greater disease burden. Despite this, RFA was not significantly associated with a higher risk of local failure and was not associated with worse survival, when compared with liver resection alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".