Pulmonary metastases from colorectal cancer: 25 years of experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the experience of pulmonary resections for colorectal metastases at the McGill University Health Centre. DESIGN: A chart review. PATIENTS: Forty-nine patients treated surgically between 1975 and 1998 for pulmonary metastases from colorectal cancer. INTERVENTION: Thoracotomy with pulmonary resection. OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival of patients with various preoperative and post operative clinical variables. RESULTS: The perioperative death rate was 4%. Overall 5- and 10-year survival rates were 55% and 40% respectively. The mean interval between the initial colonic resection and resection of pulmonary metastases (discase-free interval) was 36 months. The 7 patients who also under went resection of extrapulmonary metastases had a 5-year survival rate of 52%. Significant preoperative variables that carried a poor prognosis included the following: more than one pulmonary lesion, a disease-free interval of less than 2 years, and moderately or poorly differentiated colorectal cancer. The 16 patients who received chemotherapy after their thoracotomy had a 5-year survival rate of 51% compared with 54% for the 33 patients who did not receive chemotherapy. Recurrent resections of pulmonary lesions did not reduce survival. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary resection for metastatic colorectal cancer is both effective and safe. Resectable extrapulmonary metastases and pulmonary recurrence should not preclude lung resection. Postoperative chemotherapy has no survival benefit. Preoperative variables should guide the clinician when considering surgical intervention.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".