A Retrospective Review of Chemotherapy for Patients with Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is associated with a poor prognosis. It is an uncommon malignancy and therefore difficult to study. Randomized phase III trials are not available to guide best approaches. The Provincial Cancer Registry of the British Columbia Cancer Agency contains long-term data on patients with SBA. The authors analyzed characteristics and treatment outcomes for SBA patients diagnosed between 1990 and 2008. Material and methods: Charts of 150 patients with a histological diagnosis of SBA were retrospectively analyzed. Epidemiological and treatment data were collected. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Baseline characteristics, such as median age at diagnosis (64.5 years), tumor stage (I-II 33%, III-IV 58%, unknown 9%), and location (duodenum 48%, jejunum 31%, ileum 21%) were consistent with published data. 55% of patients had a positive family history of cancer. DFS and OS of 29 patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy were not significantly different to that of 47 patients without (p = 1 and p = 0.211, respectively). In the palliative setting patients treated with polychemotherapy (21 patients) had statistically better OS than patients treated with monochemotherapy (12 patients) (p = 0.0228). Conclusions: Our study suggests a survival benefit for advanced-stage SBA patients treated with poly-versus monochemotherapy. This, however, was a retrospective analysis with several potential confounders. Nevertheless, our study adds to the evidence suggesting that chemotherapy may be beneficial for patients with SBA, at least in the palliative setting.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".