Impact of time‐to‐surgery on outcomes of patients undergoing curative‐intent liver resection for BCLC‐0, A and B hepatocellular carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of a prolonged time-to-surgery (TTS) among patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is not well defined. METHODS: Patients who underwent curative-intent hepatectomy for BCLC-0, A and B HCC between 2000 and 2017 were identified using a multi-institutional database. The impact of prolonged TTS on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was examined. RESULTS: Among 775 patients who underwent resection for HCC, 537 (69.3%) had early surgery (TTS < 90 days) and 238 (30.7%) patients had a delayed surgery (TTS ≥ 90 days). Patient- and tumor-related characteristics were similar between the two groups except for a higher proportion of patients undergoing major liver resection in the early surgery group (31.3% vs. 23.8%, p = .04). The percentage of patients with delayed surgery varied from 8.8% to 59.1% among different centers (p < .001). Patients with TTS < 90 days had similar 5-year OS (63.7% vs. 64.9; p = .79) and 5-year DFS (33.5% vs. 42.4; p = .20) with that of patients with TTS ≥ 90 days. On multivariable analysis, delayed surgery was not associated with neither worse OS (BCLC-0/A: adjusted hazards ratio [aHR] = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-1.25 and BCLC-B: aHR = 0.72; 95%CI: 0.30-1.74) nor DFS (BCLC-0/A: aHR = 0.78; 95%CI: 0.60-1.01 and BCLC-B: aHR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.36-1.25). CONCLUSION: Approximately one in three patients diagnosed with resectable HCC had a prolonged TTS. Delayed surgery was not associated with worse outcomes among patients with resectable HCC.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".