MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Hepatic resection for colorectal cancer metastasis: A retrospective review of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre over 7 years.

2012· review· en· W2968841384 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nana Boame, Gillian Gresham, Guillaume Martel, Janelle Rekman, Derek J. Jonker, Abdulsalam Alnajjar, Waleed Mohammad, Fady Balaa, Timothy R. Asmis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerHazard ratioPerioperativeUnivariate analysisMetastasisRetrospective cohort studyPrimary tumorCancerSurgeryChemotherapyInternal medicineOncologyMultivariate analysisConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e14154 Background: The timing of chemotherapy (adjuvant vs neoadjuvant) for patients undergoing potentially curative hepatic resection of metastasis from colorectal cancer origin is controversial. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all patients at TOHCC who underwent successful surgical resection of hepatic metastasis from CRC between 2002-2009. Patients receiving intra-operative radiofrequency ablation (RFA) as part of their management were included. Factors associated with overall survival were evaluated. Results: 168 patients had median age 62 years (31-84), 57/43% male/female. Median pre-op CEA was 5.5 ng/ml (0.3 - 529.2). Primary tumor location included 40% left, 35% rectum, 20% right, 5% transverse. 61.5% patients were node positive. Following hepatectomy 10.2% had positive resection margins. Intra-operative RFA was used in 26 (15.4%) patients. Chemotherapy was administered in a neo-adjuvant (47.6%), adjuvant (58.4%) or “perioperative” (both neoadjuvant and adjuvant; 36.1% ) setting. Use of intraoperative RFA vs. no RFA was not associated with overall survival (HR: 0.94 [95%CI: 0.49-1.80],p=0.85). In both univariate and multivariate analysis, the only adverse factor found associated with survival was R1 status (HR 2.38 [95% CI 1.49-5.0], p=0.0198). Other baseline variables (age, gender, node status, histologic grade, primary tumour site, timing of metastatic diagnosis [metachronous vs. synchronous]) did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: While statistical significance was not achieved, ability to demonstrate benefit of chemotherapy may have been limited by sample size. Hazard ratios suggest trend to greatest benefit with use of post-operative adjuvant chemotherapy. 3y and 5y survival data is encouraging. Use of RFA where required as an adjunct to hepatic resection appeared as effective as resection of all disease in this series. Recurrence and morbidity data will be presented. [Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.222
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis→French-language works237,207→