Effect of cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC on survival in comparison to palliative chemotherapy for biliary carcinoma with peritoneal metastasis: A multi-institutional cohort from PSOGI and BIG RENAPE groups.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
418 Background: Peritoneal metastasis from biliary carcinoma (PMC) is associated with poor prognosis when treated with chemotherapy. The objective was to evaluate the impact on survival of cytoreduction surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and compare with conventional palliative chemotherapy for patients with PMC. Methods: A prospective multicenter international database was retrospectively searched to identify all patients with PMC treated with a potentially curative CRS/HIPEC (CRS/HIPEC group). The overall survival (OS) was compared to patients with PMC treated with palliative chemotherapy (systemic chemotherapy group). Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and compared with Log-Rank test. Results: Between 1995 and 2015, 34 patients were included in the surgical group, and compared to 21 in the medical group. In the surgical group, median peritoneal cancer index was 9 (range 3-26), macroscopically complete resection was obtained for 25 patients (73%). There was more gallbladder localization in the surgical group compared to the medical group (35% vs. 18%, p= 0.001). Median OS was 21.4 and 9.3 months for surgical and medical group, respectively (p =0.007). Three-year overall survival was 30% and 10% for surgical and medical group, respectively. Conclusions: Treatment with CRS and HIPEC for cholangiocarcinoma with peritoneal metastasis is feasible and may provide survival benefit when compared to palliative chemotherapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".