Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in a patient with peritoneal carcinomatosis from a pancreatic cystadenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a well-established procedure commonly employed in the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from tumors of various specific origins. However, it is not traditionally used in the management of PC of pancreatic origin due to various reasons, including the aggressive nature of pancreatic tumors. CASE PRESENTATION: A 67-year-old female presented with a large amount of intractable malignant ascites. Computed tomography (CT) imaging showed a nodule in the right paracolic gutter. A diagnostic laparoscopy and omental biopsy showed a well-differentiated adenocarcinoma of pancreatic origin. She was initially not considered suitable for CRS and HIPEC due to apparent liver metastases on CT imaging and was arranged to undergo palliative chemotherapy; however, due to her large amount of refractory ascites and a suspected ruptured right krukenberg tumor, surgical intervention was offered. We performed CRS, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and an omentectomy with a CC (completeness of cytoreduction) score of 1. HIPEC with mitomycin C was also administered. Notably, our patient remains clinically well at 48-months post CRS and HIPEC, with no signs or symptoms suggestive of tumor recurrence. CONCLUSION: Despite the current lack of evidence supporting the use of CRS and HIPEC in the curation of PC of pancreatic origin, this case report highlights the importance of patient selection in determining suitability for CRS. In the presence of positive prognostic factors and favorable tumor histology, CRS and HIPEC is a potential curative procedure that could be offered to highly selected patients presenting with PC from a primary pancreatic malignancy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".