Outcomes after completion total gastrectomy for gastric remnant cancer: experience from a Canadian tertiary centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is controversy about the safety and outcomes of completion total gastrectomy (CTG) for gastric adenocarcinoma. We compared a cohort of patients who underwent CTG for gastric remnant cancer (GRC) after partial gastrectomy for benign disease with patients who underwent primary total gastrectomy (PTG) for sporadic gastric cancer. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a single-institution, prospectively maintained clinical database of patients who had undergone gastrectomy from 2005 to 2016 for demographic, surgical, clinical and tumour pathology data, as well as postoperative, pathologic and oncologic outcomes including complications, length of stay, disease-free survival and overall survival. We used the χ2 and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to compare groups and performed the Mantel–Cox log-rank test for Kaplan–Meier survival estimates. We compared the CTG group to all patients in the PTG group and to a 5:1 propensity-matched PTG cohort. Results: We analyzed data for 64 patients (9 CTG, 55 PTG). The groups were equivalent at baseline and had similar operative, perioperative treatment and pathologic characteristics. After propensity matching, the reoperation rate for complications was higher after CTG than PTG (22% v. 0%, p = 0.03), but there was no significant difference in the overall complication rate or length of stay. At 5 years, there was no difference in disease-free survival (28% v. 58%, p = 0.4) or overall survival (33% v. 44%, p = 0.7). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that CTG for gastric adenocarcinoma can be undertaken safely a priori with no additional risk of recurrence or death compared to PTG for sporadic gastric cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".