MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014980098 · doi:10.2217/cer-2019-0179

Impact of cytoreductive surgery on outcomes of metastatic appendiceal carcinoma: a real-world, population-based study

2020· article· en· W3014980098 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Abdel‐Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdenocarcinomaHazard ratioProportional hazards modelOncologyInternal medicinePopulationStage (stratigraphy)CancerSurvival analysisCarcinomaSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To evaluate the impact of cytoreductive surgery on the outcomes of patients with metastatic appendiceal carcinoma. Methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database was accessed and patients with metastatic appendiceal carcinoma diagnosed (2010–2015) were reviewed. Kaplan–Meier survival estimates/log-rank testing were then used to assess overall survival outcomes according to cytoreductive surgery. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was then used to evaluate factors affecting cancer-specific survival. Factors included in this model were age, race, sex, stage and histology and cytoreductive surgery. Results: A total of 1339 patients with metastatic appendiceal carcinoma were included in the current study. Using Kaplan–Meier survival estimates to evaluate overall survival, patients with surgery for metastatic disease have better overall survival compared with patients without surgery for metastatic disease (p < 0.001). Stratifying survival analysis according to histology, the overall survival benefit from surgery for the metastases seems to be limited to patients with mucinous adenocarcinoma (p = 0.002) rather than patients with nonmucinous adenocarcinoma (p = 0.401). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was then conducted to evaluate factors predicting cancer-specific survival. The following factors were associated with worse cancer-specific survival: African-American race (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.356; 95% CI: 1.036–1.774; p = 0.026), more advanced stage (HR: 3.910; 95% CI: 2.735–5.588; p < 0.001), nonmucinous adenocarcinoma (HR for signet ring carcinoma vs mucinous adenocarcinoma: 2.119; 95% CI: 1.674–2.683; p < 0.001) and no surgical resection of metastatic disease (HR: 1.273; 95% CI: 1.067–1.519; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The current study suggests that among patients with metastatic appendiceal carcinoma, surgical cytoreduction of metastatic disease is associated with improved outcomes for patients with mucinous adenocarcinoma but not in patients with nonmucinous adenocarcinoma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness ResearchSame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207