MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ten-year survival data following resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).

2017· article· en· W2598343706 on OpenAlexaff
David P. Cyr, Francis Si Wai Zih, Jossie Swett-Cosentino, Shelly Luu, Bryan J Wells, Ronald L. Burkes, Bernard Cummings, Faryal Esmail, Andrew J. Smith, Carol J. Swallow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of CalgarySunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortSurgeryColorectal cancerRetrospective cohort studyOverall survivalMultivariate analysisCancerSurvival analysisMetastasisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

730 Background: The ‘Beyond TME’ Collaborative identified LRRC as a complex problem requiring multidisciplinary consultation and specialized surgical care. Aggressive en bloc resection of LRRC at specialized cancer centers is associated with 5y survival rates of 25-50%. However, skepticism persists that LRRC can be cured given the lack of published longer-term survival data. We investigated the oncologic outcomes at 10y following resection of LRRC and sought relevant clinicopathologic prognostic variables. Methods: The study cohort consists of 52 consecutive patients (31M, 21F) who underwent LRRC resection at our center between 09/1997 and 08/2005. En bloc sacrectomy was performed in 30 patients (58%) with the goal of achieving complete margin negative (R0) resection. At the time of LRRC resection, 46 of 52 patients had isolated LRRC (M0), and 6 had potentially resectable distant metastasis (M1). Patients were followed with H&P, CT-CAP q4mos X2y, q6mos X3y, then annually. Results: At last follow-up (f/u), 32 patients had died of rectal cancer, 1 died of other causes, 4 were alive with rectal cancer, and 15 (30%) were alive cancer-free. For the entire cohort of 52 patients, median f/u time was 44mos (4-162) and overall survival (OS) was 42% at 5y, 37% at 10y, median 43mos. In the group who were alive at last f/u (N = 19), median f/u time was 123mos (45-162). Prognostic variables for OS in univariate analysis included: m status, resection margin status, receipt of systemic Rx, and receipt of radiotherapy. All patients who had M1 disease at the time of LRRC resection died of recurrent cancer at a median of 21mos (4-46). In the 46 M0 patients, OS was 47% at 5y, 42% at 10y, median 50mos; furthermore, disease-free survival (DFS) was 38% at 5y, 38% at 10y, median 39mos. In patients who had R0 resection (n = 41), OS was 51% at 5y, 45% at 10y, median 72mos. Preoperative chemotherapy at the time of primary presentation (n = 26) or before resection of LRRC (n = 20) was associated with significantly improved prognosis ( p= 0.004, p= 0.03, respectively). Conclusions: Complete resection of LRRC was associated with durable survival in approximately 40% of patients, with plateauing of survival curves after 5y. Preoperative therapy of LRRC may improve survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.327
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207