MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155623593 · doi:10.14740/wjon911w

Periampullary and Pancreatic Metastases of Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Underdiagnosed Event

2015· article· en· W2155623593 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Omar Y. Mousa, Rushikesh Shah, Nasser Hajar, Steve Landas

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMelenaRenal cell carcinomaMetastasisAbdominal painPeriampullary cancerPancreaticoduodenectomyPancreatic cancerRadiologySurgeryInternal medicineCancerPancreas

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Cancer Institute reports high incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the US compared to other regions. However, pancreatic and periampullary metastasis are uncommon when only 17% of the RCC cases metastasize overall. We herein present a case series of four patients with periampullary or pancreatic metastatic disease following complete resection of RCC, evaluating their occurrences and outcomes. We reviewed the cases of four male patients retrospectively, mean age 75 years (range 65 - 87) who had a previous history of nephrectomy for RCC. They experienced recurrence with periampullary (two patients) or pancreatic (two patients) metastatic disease between 0 and 108 months (mean time 41.5 months) following primary tumor resection. In patients with periampullary metastasis, one had asymptomatic presentation with progressive dilatation of the pancreatic duct noted on surveillance CT scans. The other patient had iron deficiency anemia and melena with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) findings of large fungating infiltrative ulcerating mass in the area of the duodenal papilla (the only patient with metastasis to other sites: lungs and colon). As for those with pancreatic metastasis, one patient presented with hematuria and abdominal pain and was found to have pancreatic metastasis at the time of RCC diagnosis. The other patient was admitted for further workup of a mass in the pancreatic tail upon surveillance. Pathologic findings included high grade RCC in the metastatic foci. Management of such patients included: distal pancreatectomy in two patients without chemoradiation, one was awaiting Whipple procedure and received four cycles of sunitinib, while the last was a poor surgical candidate and received aminocaproic acid. Three patients are still alive to date. Optimal management is challenging given the very high risk of delayed relapse following tumor resection of the localized disease, leaving such cases with a very poor prognosis. Therefore to enhance survival, it is imperative to have careful stage-dependent surveillance in patients who have undergone a prior resection of RCC. We emphasize the importance of raising awareness for this unusual presentation. Disease recurrence as a pancreatic mass or hepatobiliary ductal dilatation might be more frequent than previously reported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207