An International Registry of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis from Appendiceal Goblet Cell Carcinoma Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Peritoneal carcinomatosis from appendiceal goblet cell carcinoma (A-GCC) is a rare and aggressive form of appendiceal tumor. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intra peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) was reported as an interesting alternative regarding survival compared to surgery without HIPEC and/or systemic chemotherapy. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of CRS and HIPEC for patients presenting A-GCC through an international registry. METHODS: A prospective multicenter international database was retrospectively searched to identify all patients with A-GCC tumor and peritoneal metastases who underwent CRS and HIPEC through the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI). The post-operative complications, long-term results, and principal prognostic factors were analyzed. RESULTS: The analysis included 83 patients. After a median follow-up of 47 months, the median overall survival (OS) was 34.6 months. The 3- and 5-year OS was 48.5% and 35.7%, respectively. Patients who underwent complete macroscopic CRS had a significantly better survival than those treated with incomplete CRS. The 5-year OS was 44% and 0% for patients who underwent complete, and incomplete CRS, respectively (HR 9.65, p < 0.001). Lymph node involvement and preoperative chemotherapy were also predictive of a worse prognosis. There were 3 postoperative deaths, and 30% of the patients had major complications. CONCLUSION: CRS and HIPEC may increase long-term survival in selected patients with peritoneal metastases of A-GCC origin, especially when complete CRS is achieved. Ideally, randomized control trials or more retrospective data are needed to confirm CRS and HIPEC as the gold standard in this pathology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".