MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172156254 · doi:10.1016/s1010-7940(00)00405-x

Long-term results of sleeve lobectomy for lung cancer

2000· article· en· W2172156254 on OpenAlexaff
François Tronc, Jocelyn Grégoire, Jacques R. Rouleau, Jean Deslauriers

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sainte Foy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerSurgeryPneumonectomySquamous carcinomaCancerCarcinomaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Sleeve lobectomy is a lung saving procedure indicated for central tumors for which the alternative is a pneumonectomy. Current controversies relate to the safety of the procedure and adequacy as a cancer operation. The aim of the study is to analyze long-term survival after sleeve lobectomy, particularly in relation with nodal status and histological type. The incidence and patterns of recurrences were reviewed. METHODS: From 1972 to 1998, 184 patients (male 152, female 32) underwent sleeve resection for lung cancer. The mean age was 60+/-10 years (11-78 years), and the indications for operation were a central tumor (79%), peripheral tumor with nodal involvement (13%) and compromised pulmonary function (8%). The histological type was predominantly squamous (n=125, 68%), followed by non-squamous (n=50, 27%) and carcinoid tumors (n=9, 5%). Resection was complete in 161 patients (87%). RESULTS: The operative mortality was 1.6% (n=3). Follow-up was complete for the remaining 181 patients (mean, 5.7 years; range, 1 month-26 years). The survival at 5 and 10 years of all patients was 52 and 33%, respectively. Theses rates for patients with N0 status (n=97) were 63 and 48%, and 48 and 27% for those with N1 status (n=68; N0 vs. N1, P<0.05). An 8% survival rate was observed with N2 status (n=19) at 5 years, with no survivors after 7 years of follow-up. The 5 and 10 year survival was 56 and 34% for squamous carcinoma vs. 33 and 22% for non-squamous carcinoma (P<0.05). These rates were 58 and 38% for complete resection vs. 11 and 6% for incomplete resection at 5 and 10 years, respectively (P<0.05). Local recurrences occurred in 22% of cases, and the prevalence was statistically different between patients with N0 disease (14%) and N1 disease (23%; P=0.03), but not between N1 and N2 disease (42%; P=0.2). When local and distant recurrence were pooled together, the differences were highly significant between N0 (22%) and N1 (41%) disease (P=0.007), and between N0 and N2 (63%) disease (P=0.0002), but not between N1 and N2 disease (P=0.09). CONCLUSION: Sleeve lobectomy is a safe and effective therapy for patients with resectable lung cancer. The presence of N1 and N2 disease, or of non-squamous carcinoma significantly worsen the prognosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations89
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207