The location of the primary colon cancer has no impact on outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal metastasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of the location of colorectal cancer on patient outcomes has been reported in several settings. The objective of this study was to assess the prognostic impact of the location of the primary colon cancer among patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases undergoing complete cytoreductive surgery. METHODS: Using the prospectively maintained clinical and biological digestive peritoneal metastasis database of the BIG-RENAPE network, we identified 796 patients treated by a complete cytoreductive surgery between January 2004 and January 2017 for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases in 16 different institutions. The 2 primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. To evaluate the impact on overall survival and progression-free survival of potential prognostic factors (including the location of the primary colorectal cancer), these factors were included in univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Right-sided colorectal cancers were more often BRAF mutated and had microsatellite instability, whereas the frequency of RAS mutation was similar between right-sided and left-sided colorectal cancers. After a median follow-up time of 3.3 years, there was no significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival according to tumor side. The lack of effect of tumor location on overall survival and progression-free survival was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing complete cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal metastases, the site of the primary colorectal cancer was not associated with differences in progression-free survival or overall survival. Tumor side should not be used as a stratification factor in trials of colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases and should not be used in the selection process of patients for cytoreductive surgery.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".