MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199735803 · doi:10.1093/dote/doab052.855

855 OPTIMIZATION OF SURGICAL DELAY AFTER INDUCTION CHEMORADIATION FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: 10 YEARS RETROSPECTIVE MULTI-CENTER STUDY

2021· article· en· W3199735803 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexis Legault-Dupuis, Philippe Bouchard, Frédéric Nicodème, Jean‐Pierre Gagné, Serge Simard, Yves Lacasse, Pier-Luc Hache, Christian Couture, Anne-Sophie Laliberté

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Esophagus · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsophagectomyEsophageal cancerSurgeryAnastomosisStatistical significanceRetrospective cohort studyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The treatment of esophageal cancer is in constant evolution. Most of the esophageal cancer receive induction chemoradiation therapy. Surgical delay has been studied but the optimal timing has not been clarified. Through the years, surgical delay has been modified by surgeons in our institutions, going from an average of 6 weeks delay to an average of 10 weeks delay. It is time to ask if this change has a real positive impact on our patient. Methods In this retrospective multi-center study, we combined data from two center in Quebec city that performs oncologic esophagectomy. The surgical delay went from 6 to 10 weeks around 2014. All surgeons changed their practice at that moment. We retrospectively analysed 5 years before and after the change of practice and created two cohorts of patients. Our primary outcome compared complete pathologic response rate. Our secondary outcomes were surgical complications, anastomotic leak, disease free survival and overall survival. Results Thirty-eight patients had surgery under 8 weeks (mean: 6 weeks) after their induction chemoradiation compared to 64 patients that had surgery after 8 weeks (mean: 10 weeks). There was no statistical significant difference between groups for the complete pathologic response (32% vs 25%, p = 0,16). Important complications were similar, with a rate of 24% vs 28% (p = 0,69). Anastomotic leaks were less frequent in the less than 8 weeks group, but no statistical significance was obtained (13% vs 27%, p = 0,14).No difference in the disease-free survival rate and overall survival rate was noted (DFS 40% vs 55% (p = 0,32), OS 38% vs 38% (p = 0,29)). Conclusion The treatment of esophageal cancer is in constant evolution, induction therapy and surgical technics involve over time. Surgical delay has no impact on complete pathologic response, complication and overall survival. There is no advantage to wait longer before surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the EsophagusSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207