A systematic review of outcomes after salvage abdominoperineal resection for persistent or recurrent anal squamous cell cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Up to 30% of patients with squamous cell cancer of the anus (SCCA) will require a salvage abdominoperineal resection (APR) for either persistent or recurrent disease. The objective of this study was to assess cancer-related outcomes in patients with (i) persistent or (ii) recurrent SCCA. METHOD: Embase and MEDLINE were searched. Publications were included if they assessed overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and locoregional recurrence or metastatic disease after salvage APR for persistent or recurrent SCCA. RESULTS: A total of 28 retrospective case series (study size ranged from nine to 111) met our inclusion criteria. The median time to salvage APR was 2.6 months [interquartile range (IQR) 2.6-5.0 months, six studies] for persistent disease and 27.6 months (IQR 15.0-32.7 months, five studies) for recurrent disease. The median 5-year OS from the time of salvage APR was 45.0% (IQR 32.0%-52.3%, 10 studies) for persistent disease and 51.0% (IQR 36.0%-60.9%, 11 studies) for recurrent disease. The median 5-year DFS following salvage APR was 44.0% (IQR 29.5%-53.0%, 10 studies) for all patients. Following salvage APR, the median locoregional recurrence rate was 23.5% (IQR 15.8%- 46.9%, 19 studies) and 9.0% (IQR 6.4%-13.3%, 16 studies) of patients developed metastatic disease after salvage APR. CONCLUSION: Our review characterizes the best evidence for outcomes following salvage APR for patients with persistent or recurrent SCCA. The evidence is limited by the quality of included studies, as many were single centre case series.
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".