Patient Survival After Simultaneous ALPPS and Colorectal Resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver resection combined with colorectal surgery (CRS) is the only curative option in many patients presenting with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases (CRLM). Simultaneous resection has been shown to offer benefits in patients with low hepatic tumor load; however, in the setting of in situ colorectal tumor with extensive CRLM and a small predicted future liver remnant (FLR), the use of simultaneous ALPPS and CRS is controversial, lacking outcome data. METHODS: Thirty-one cases of simultaneous ALPPS and CRS prospectively entered into the International ALPPS Registry were examined. Univariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with 90-day mortality after stage-2. RESULTS: Thirty patients (97%) completed both stages. CRS was performed during stage-1 in 22 patients (73%). Seven patients (23%) had severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIb) following stage-2 ALPPS. The 90-day mortality rate was 15%. Patients who had a severe complication after stage-1 were significantly more likely to have 90-day mortality following stage-2 (p = 0.002). MELD score > 10 on postoperative day-5 after stage-1 was also significantly associated with 90-day mortality (p = 0.011). Disease-free survival and overall survival were 36% and 76% at 1 year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the high mortality and poor long-term survival identified in this series, the adoption of ALPPS with CRS cannot be recommended without further data. Patients who suffer severe complications or have an elevated MELD score after stage-1 are at higher risk of mortality following stage-2.
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".