Prognostic Role of Mismatch Repair Status, Histotype and High-Risk Pathologic Features in Stage II Small Bowel Adenocarcinomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Small bowel adenocarcinoma is a relatively rare cancer, often diagnosed in an advanced stage. In localized and resectable disease, surgery alone or in combination with adjuvant chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment. In the recently published National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice guidelines, criteria for selecting patients with stage II small bowel adenocarcinoma to receive adjuvant chemotherapy are provided, and they are mainly extrapolated from studies on colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the present study, we aimed to verify whether mismatch repair deficiency phenotype, high-risk pathologic features (including T4, positive resection margins and a low number of lymph nodes harvested), as well as tumor histologic subtype, were associated with cancer-specific survival in 66 stage II non-ampullary small bowel adenocarcinoma patients, collected through the Small Bowel Cancer Italian Consortium. A central histopathology review was performed. Mismatch repair deficiency was tested by immunohistochemistry for MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2, and confirmed by polymerase chain reaction for microsatellite instability. RESULTS: We identified mismatch repair deficiency, glandular/medullary histologic subtype, and celiac disease as significant predictors of favorable cancer-specific survival using univariable analysis with retained significance in bivariable models adjusted for pT stage. Among the high-risk features, only T4 showed a significant association with an increased risk of death; however, its prognostic value was not independent of mismatch repair status. CONCLUSIONS: Mismatch repair protein expression, histologic subtype, association with celiac disease, and, in the mismatch repair proficient subset only, T stage, may help identify patients who may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".