Transanal Local Excision for Patients With Rectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision has long been the standard of care for patients with rectal cancer. However, in select patients, local excision is an appropriate alternative option. The role of adjuvant radiation therapy in patients treated with local excision is controversial and evidence is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report oncological outcomes of patients with rectal cancer treated with local excision and adjuvant radiation. DESIGN: This study was a retrospective chart review. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at the BC Cancer Agency, a tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 93 patients with node-negative rectal cancer treated with local excision and adjuvant radiotherapy between 2001 and 2010 were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient and tumor characteristics are reported. Five-year local control, progression-free survival, and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: Five-year overall survival, local control, and progression-free survival for patients treated with local excision and adjuvant radiotherapy were 78.5%, 86.1%, and 83.8%. In T1 disease, local control was 92.5%. LIMITATIONS: Referral bias, selection bias, lack of uniform surveillance, and retrospective analysis are the study limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Local excision with adjuvant radiotherapy provides a good level of local control in T1 disease and remains a good treatment option for patients who are either medically not suitable for a more radical surgical approach or who refuse this procedure. Local excision and radiotherapy should not be advocated in T2/T3 disease; however, it can provide a good alternative in those patients who are not fit enough for a more radical operation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".