Prognosis of poorly cohesive gastric cancer after complete cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CYTO-CHIP study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of gastric poorly cohesive carcinoma (PCC) is increasing. The prognosis for patients with peritoneal metastases remains poor and the role of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is controversial. The aim was to clarify the impact of gastric PCC with peritoneal metastases treated by CRS with or without HIPEC. METHODS: All patients with peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer treated with CRS with or without HIPEC, in 19 French centres, between 1989 and 2014, were identified from institutional databases. Clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes were compared between PCC and non-PCC subtypes, and the possible benefit of HIPEC was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 277 patients were included (188 PCC, 89 non-PCC). HIPEC was performed in 180 of 277 patients (65 per cent), including 124 of 188 with PCC (66 per cent). Median overall survival (OS) was 14.7 (95 per cent c.i. 12.7 to 17.3) months in the PCC group versus 21.2 (14.7 to 36.4) months in the non-PCC group (P < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, PCC (hazard ratio (HR) 1.51, 95 per cent c.i. 1.01 to 2.25; P = 0.044) was associated with poorer OS, as were pN3, Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI), and resection with a completeness of cytoreduction score of 1, whereas HIPEC was associated with improved OS (HR 0.52; P < 0.001). The benefit of CRS-HIPEC over CRS alone was consistent, irrespective of histology, with a median OS of 16.7 versus 11.3 months (HR 0.60, 0.39 to 0.92; P = 0.018) in the PCC group, and 34.5 versus 14.3 months (HR 0.43, 0.25 to 0.75; P = 0.003) in the non-PCC group. Non-PCC and HIPEC were independently associated with improved recurrence-free survival and fewer peritoneal recurrences. In patients who underwent HIPEC, PCI values of below 7 and less than 13 were predictive of OS in PCC and non-PCC populations respectively. CONCLUSION: In selected patients, CRS-HIPEC offers acceptable outcomes among those with gastric PCC and long survival for patients without PCC.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".