Synchronous colorectal liver metastases: a national survey of surgeon opinions on simultaneous resection and multidisciplinary cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has evolved significantly (improved chemotherapy, hepatic surgery advancements, colonic stenting, consultation synergies). We sought to better understand surgeon viewpoints on optimal referral patterns and the delivery of simultaneous resections. METHODS: A 40 question on-line survey was offered to members of the Canadian surgical community. Statistical analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: A total of 52 surgeons responded. Most colorectal surgeons (CRS) had access to and a good working relationship with regional hepatobiliary (HPB) surgeons (86%) and medical oncologists (100%). The majority (92%) believed there was a role for simultaneous resection of sCRLM, with 69% having first hand experience. Many CRS (62%) discussed all cases of known hepatic metastases with HPB prior to any resection. When a lesion was asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic, most CRS (92%) discussed them with medical oncology/HPB prior to resection (8%). Bilobar metastases (58%), patient comorbidities (35%), portal lymphadenopathy (35%), and patient age (15%) restricted CRS from obtaining HPB consultations. Many CRS (46%) did not believe that resecting hepatic metastases prior to the primary lesion might be beneficial. Most CRS (60%) reported they could not accurately predict hepatic resectability, with only 27% familiarity with evidence-based guidelines. Despite working in smaller hospitals with less access to HPB and less experience with simultaneous resections, non-CR general surgeons more commonly supported a 'liver-first' approach. CONCLUSIONS: There was general agreement between CRS and general surgeons on numerous topics, but additional education is required with regard to HPB surgical capabilities and to provide truly individualized patient-centered care.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".