Patterns of peri-operative systemic therapy in liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e14048 Background: Treatment for liver-limited mCRC is increasingly multi-disciplinary, frequently involving systemic therapy and surgery. Our aims were to 1) explore the use and choice of systemic therapy pre- and post-liver resection and 2) examine if specific regimens were associated with improved outcomes. Methods: All patients diagnosed with liver-limited mCRC in British Columbia, Canada from 2006 to 2007 were reviewed. Summary statistics were used to describe surgical and systemic treatment patterns. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to characterize the relationship between systemic regimen and survival. Results: Among 374 patients, 42% were aged >/=70 years, 60% were men, 24/39/37% were ECOG 0/1/2+, 80% had primary tumor surgery, and 68% received prior adjuvant chemotherapy. For liver metastases, 95 (26%) were offered hepatic resection. Compared to those who did not receive liver surgery, resected patients were younger (median 60 vs 69), had better function (ECOG 0/1 88 vs 55%), largest liver lesion was smaller (median 3 vs 4 cm), and had fewer total lesions (median 1 vs 4) (all p<0.05). Patients who underwent liver surgery also had improved median overall survival (12.0 vs 9.4 months, p<0.05) than those who did not. Among resected patients, 47% received pre-operative chemotherapy: FOLFOX (28%, median 7 cycles), FOLFIRI (18%, median 9 cycles), or capecitabine (1%, median 6 cycles) while 74% received post-operative treatment: FOLFOX (26%, median 3 cycles), FOLFIRI (37%, median 9 cycles), or capecitabine (11%, median 8 cycles). About 15% and 31% of patients also received bevacizumab as part of their pre- and post-operative regimens, respectively. Median overall survival did not differ significantly based on choice of chemotherapy backbone: FOLFOX (13.9 months), FOLFIRI (11.5 months), and capecitabine (10.9 months) (p=0.44) or receipt of bevacizumab: yes (14.5 months) vs no (11.1 months) (p=0.57) Conclusions: In this retrospective cohort of liver-limited mCRC patients, hepatic resection was associated with improved survival. Among those offered peri-operative therapy, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and capecitabine, either alone or in combination with bevacizumab, appear to be reasonable options.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".