Resection of isolated metastases to the pancreas: An institutional retrospective review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
365 Background: Resection of isolated metastases in good performance status patient (pts) has increasingly become an accepted standard of care. While resection of hepatic and pulmonary metastases from selected cancers such as CRC and RCC have supportive evidence, the safety and effectiveness of pancreatic resections for metastases from these same tumour sites is not as well established. We aim to identify the optimal assessment and selection criteria which would best predict a favourable outcome from pancreatic metastatectomy. Methods: A prospective pathology database was used to identify pts who underwent partial or total pancreatectomy for solid tumour metastases to the pancreas between Sept 2000 to May 2013. Demographic, histologic, surgical and survival data was collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: 19 pts were identified and included. Follow-up time ranged from 5 months to 8 years. Most common primary sites were RCC (42%,) CRC (11%) and GIST (11%). Favourable outcome, defined as an event-free survival greater than 12 mos from pancreatectomy, was observed in 63% (12/19) and was associated with a higher proportion of RCC (50% vs 14%), pancreas as M1 presentation (58% vs 43%), longer time from presentation to resection (median 5mos vs 2mos), multidisciplinary conference (MDC) review (33% vs 14%) and preop PET (42% vs 14%). No differences were observed by age or gender. Median postoperative length of stay was 22.1 days. Conclusions: Resection of pancreatic metastases remains a rare indication. Given the morbidity and extended LOS associated with pancreatectomy, careful patient selection is required. In this small retrospective series, favourable outcomes were more frequently associated with RCC primary, delayed resection, pre-op MDC and PET staging. Multicentre surgical registries would enhance future analysis and better guide patient selection.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".