Chemotherapy for resected colorectal cancer pulmonary metastases: Utilization and outcomes in routine clinical practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
236 Background: The role of chemotherapy in the setting of resected colorectal cancer pulmonary metastases (CRCPM) is not well defined. Here we describe utilization of peri-operative chemotherapy and outcomes among patients with resected CRCPM in the general population. Methods: All cases of CRCPM who underwent resection from 2002-2009 were identified using the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR). Electronic treatment records identified peri-operative chemotherapy delivered within 16 weeks before or after pulmonary metastectomy (PM). Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate factors associated with chemotherapy delivery. Cox proportional models were used to explore the association between post-operative chemotherapy and cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Results: The study population included 420 patients. Thirty-six percent of patients (151/420) received peri-operative chemotherapy. Among these patients, 75% (113/151) received post-operative chemotherapy. Factors that were independently associated with use of post-operative chemotherapy included higher socioeconomic status (SES) and no prior adjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.01). In adjusted analyses post-operative chemotherapy was not associated with improved CSS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67-1.47) or OS (HR 0.93 95%CI 0.66-1.31). In exploratory analyses, among those patients who did not receive previous adjuvant therapy for the primary colorectal cancer, post-operative chemotherapy following lung metastatectomy was associated with HR 0.50 (95%CI 0.27-0.95) for OS and HR 0.59 (95%CI 0.27-1.27) for CSS. Conclusions: One third of patients with resected CRCPM in routine practice receive peri-operative chemotherapy. A randomized controlled trial is warranted to evaluate whether chemotherapy following resection of CRCPM is associated with improved 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".