Sites of gastric cancer recurrence after adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
68 Background: Since the Intergroup 0116 study in 2000, adjuvant post-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has been offered routinely to similar patients with resected gastric cancer at Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) using CT-planned and 3D conformal/intensity modulated radiotherapy (RT). The objective of this study was to analyze patterns of recurrence with respect to RT treatment volumes. Methods: Date and site (local, locoregional or distant) of first recurrence data was obtained from chart review for all patients treated at PMH with adjuvant CRT for resected gastric adenocarcinoma (Jan. 1, 2000-Nov. 30, 2009). Patients whose recurrences were limited to local (gastric remnant, duodenal margin, gastric bed recurrence) and/or regional sites (regional lymph node recurrence) were selected for analysis. When available, diagnostic imaging of recurrence site was registered to the original planning RT dataset. The center of mass for each recurrence was identified as a point and its location categorized according to the isodose encompassing it; in-field (≥ 90%), marginal (50%-89%), and out-of-field (< 50%). Results: Three-year OS, and RFS were 66% (95% CI: 58-73) and 58% (50-60), respectively. Of 203 patients treated, 75 recurrences were identified (Table). Of the 13 local/locoregional recurrences, 4 were in-field, 1 marginal, 1 could not be registered due to change in body habitus, and 7 did not have an available original dataset. Conclusions: Rates of isolated local and/or regional recurrence in this study were low. This represents a change in the pattern seen with surgery alone suggesting the addition of CRT results in decreased isolated local and/or regional recurrence. Of the small number of local and/or regional recurrences available for analysis, all were in-field or marginal. Further studies involving a larger cohort of patients might allow for more meaningful analysis of trends in recurrence site with evolving RT techniques. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.001 | 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".