Effect of PET-CT on disease recurrence and its management in patients with potentially resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases: The long-term results of a randomized control trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
562 Background: The PETCAM randomized trial evaluated the effect of preoperative PET-CT (vs. no PET-CT) on surgical management in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases. In this study, 8% of patients had a change in surgical management, including a higher proportion of major liver resections in the PET-CT arm. The current study compares the intervention groups for 5-year disease free (DFS) and overall survival (OS), and evaluated their long-term clinical course, i.e. sites of recurrence and management of disease recurrence. Methods: Recruitment to the trial occurred between 2005-2010, with last follow-up in 2013. Data on recurrence, management of recurrence and mortality from 2013-2017 was collected from patient’s charts. Recurrences according to site and management were described. Cox proportional Hazard Models were used to calculate the risk for recurrence and death. OS was calculated with Kaplan-Meir method and compared with log-rank test. Results: At 5 years, 157 of 404 (39%) patients were still alive and 19 patients were lost to follow-up. Median follow-up is 4.2 years. There were no differences in DFS (HR: 1.12, 95%CI: 0.88-1.42) or OS (HR: 0.97, 95%CI: 0.74-1.28) between groups. The median DFS for the 372 patients who had surgery was 17 months, 95%CI: 14.7-19.4. Risks factors for recurrence were: extrahepatic disease, liver tumour size, and nodal stage. The median OS for all patients was 50 months, 95%CI: 43.5-64.3. Risks factors for death also included age and prior use of chemotherapy. During the follow-up period, 287/404, 71% patients recurred (mostly liver and lung); 137 (48%) were treated solely with chemotherapy and 35% were treated with surgery with curative intent. Of these, the majority recurred (109/116, 94%). The median OS following first recurrence was 27.5 months, 95%CI: 23-30. Conclusions: PET-CT did not improve DFS or OS. Survival following liver resection is similar to previous reports, however most patients experience disease recurrence. A substantial proportion of patients who recur undergo surgery, however it is likely that they will recur again.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".