Patterns of Lymph Node Recurrence in Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases after Surgery: A Retrospective Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hepatic resection is the standard treatment for resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. There is evidence that lymphatics play a role in disease recurrence post-surgery. The aim of this retrospective study is to assess patterns of lymph node recurrence after liver resection. Methods: Patients who had liver resection for colorectal cancer metastasis between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 at 2 institutions in Melbourne, Australia were included. Data was collected from databases located at the 2 surgical centres.Results: Seventy-four patients were included in the study. Follow-up period was for a mean of 31.4 months. Lymph node recurrence was seen in 39.2% of patients during follow-up. Initial recurrence sites after hepatectomy was mainly in visceral-site only. Lymph node recurrences became more prominent during subsequent Recurrence Stages (RS) (RS1 – 22.4%, RS2 – 50.0%, RS3 – 50.0%, RS4 – 71.4%, RS5 – 66.7%, and RS6 – 0%). No predictive factor showed statistically significant relation to development of nodal recurrence. Conclusion: Lymph node recurrences after hepatic resection for liver metastases usually occur subsequent to a visceral-site only metastasis. There is no predictive factor as to which nodal group would be involved due to the complexity of liver lymphatic drainage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".