Impact of Psychotherapeutic Support for Patients With Gastrointestinal Cancer Undergoing Surgery: 10-Year Survival Results of a Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The impact of psychotherapeutic support on survival for patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery was studied. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in cooperation with the Departments of General Surgery and Medical Psychology, University Hospital of Hamburg, Germany, from January 1991 to January 1993. Consenting patients (N = 271) with a preliminary diagnosis of cancer of the esophagus, stomach, liver/gallbladder, pancreas, or colon/rectum were stratified by sex and randomly assigned to a control group that received standard care as provided on the surgical wards, or to an experimental group that received formal psychotherapeutic support in addition to routine care during the hospital stay. From June 2003 to December 2003, the 10-year follow-up was conducted. Survival status for all patients was determined from our own records and from three external sources: the Hamburg cancer registry, family doctors, and the general citizen registration offices. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier survival curves demonstrated better survival for the experimental group than the control group. The unadjusted significance level for group differences was P = .0006 for survival to 10 years. Cox regression models that took TNM staging or the residual tumor classification and tumor site into account also found significant differences at 10 years. Secondary analyses found that differences in favor of the experimental group occurred in patients with stomach, pancreatic, primary liver, or colorectal cancer. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that patients with gastrointestinal cancer, who undergo surgery for stomach, pancreatic, primary liver, or colorectal cancer, benefit from a formal program of psychotherapeutic support during the inpatient hospital stay in terms of long-term survival.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".