Predicting survival in resected pancreatic cancer: A Canadian provincial experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
361 Background: Surgical resection offers the only hope for long-term disease control in patients (pts) with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Randomized trials (ESPAC 1, ESPAC3) further support a role for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in the management of pancreatic cancer (PC). Trial outcomes may not reflect clinical reality due to pt selection bias, and it is often difficult to predict which pts are most likely to benefit from adjuvant intervention. Methods: Consecutive pts between 2003 and 2008 referred to the BC Cancer Agency (BCCA) with operative intent at diagnosis (dx) were retrospectively reviewed. Results: 145 pts were identified; median age 65 years (y) (range 38-84), male/female (45.5%, 54.5%). EUS/PET staging was performed in 21% of pts. Median CA19-9 value at dx was 210 ku/L. Pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed in 65% of pts. Complete resection (RO) of tumours occurred in 87 pts (60%) overall. 66% of pts were node positive. 43% of pts were subsequently treated with adjuvant therapy (AT) where 5% of these pts received chemoradiotherapy and 95% received AC (65% gemcitabine). There was no statistically significant difference in either OS (p=0.39) or DFS (p=0.28) amongst resected pts who were treated by sx alone versus pts who received AC. In subgroup analysis, AC was associated with significantly improved OS in pts (n=58) with positive margins (R1) (median 17.3 mos vs 8.9 mos, p=0.0045) but benefit was not seen in R0 pts (n=87) (22.9 mos vs 22.4 mos, p=0.20). In multivariate analysis, poor performance status (ECOG 3-4), weight loss of more than 10% of initial body weight, baseline CA19-9 value greater than 210 ku/L, positive nodes, R1 status and histological grade 3-4 were significant adverse prognostic factors. Conclusions: PC continues to have poor outcomes with a 5yOS of 5% in pts treated with sx alone. Among pts with resectable PC treated at the BCCA, AC tended towards increased DFS and OS. Although R1 status was associated with inferior OS, the benefit of AT was greater in this subgroup. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".