The benefit of surgical management of colorectal carcinoma bone metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: Metastatic colorectal carcinoma to bone rarely requires surgical intervention, and is infrequently studied. Aggressive surgical resection is sometimes empirically recommended in these patients, although there is no proven benefit for patient survival. Our hypothesis was that there is survival advantage conferred by resecting bone metastases (BM) when surgery is necessary. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database and identified 39 patients with bone metastases in the appendicular skeleton requiring surgery. Patients underwent surgery because of intractable pain, impending pathologic fracture, and/or pathologic fracture at presentation. Results: Median survival after complete resection of bone metastasis was higher (8 months) than for patients who had surgery, but did not have bony metastases completely excised (3 months, p = 0.014); and in surgical patients who had solitary bone metastasis at presentation ( p = 0.023) compared with multiple bone involvement. There were no perioperative deaths. Additional skeletal surgeries were only required for patients (4 out of 39) with local recurrences. In cases of local recurrence, the median time to progression was 19 months. Conclusions: Surgery for bone metastasis in colorectal carcinoma is well tolerated, and can be considered for palliative care. Compared with other surgical techniques, complete bone-metastasis resection is associated with longer overall survival, and with longer recurrence free 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".