Cryotherapy in extra-abdominal desmoid tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Desmoid tumor is a locally-invasive neoplasm that causes significant morbidity. There is recent interest in cryotherapy for treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors. This systematic review assesses evidence on safety and efficacy of cryotherapy in the treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review was conducted with reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Literature search was performed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. 9 full text papers were reviewed and meta-analysis was performed for measures of safety, efficacy and symptom relief. RESULTS: The estimated pooled proportion of major and minor complications was 4.2% (95% CI, 1.8-9.6; I 2 = 0%) and 10.2% (95% CI, 5.7-17.8; I 2 = 0%) respectively. The estimated pooled proportion of non-progressive disease rate of all studies was 85.8% (95% CI, 73.4-93.0; I 2 = 32.9%). The estimated progression free survival rate at 1 year was 84.5% (95% CI:74.6-95.8) and 78.0% at 3 years (95% CI: 63.8-95.3). As for pain control, the estimated pooled proportion of patients with decrease in visual analogue scale (VAS) > = 3 for those with VAS > = 3 before treatment for 2 studies was 87.5% (95% CI, 0.06-100; I 2 = 71.5%) while 37.5% to 96.9% of patients were reported to have experienced partial or complete symptom relief in the other studies. CONCLUSION: Cryotherapy is a safe and effective treatment modality for extra-abdominal desmoid tumors with efficacy similar to those treated with traditional strategies in the short to medium term.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".