A Canadian single-centre experience with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for abdominal malignancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cytoreductive surgery in combination with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) has recently shown promise for the treatment of patients with various types of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). However, it is an extensive procedure that is associated with a variety of morbidities. We evaluated the safety and clinical outcomes of CRS-HIPEC performed at our centre. Methods: Patients with abdominal malignancies who underwent CRS-HIPEC between February 2005 and December 2018 at the Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM) were retrospectively reviewed. Results: A total of 141 patients were identified (66 with appendiceal cancer, 62 with colorectal cancer, 10 with mesothelioma and 3 with small intestinal tumours). The median age was 55 years. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached for patients with appendiceal tumours; it was 38.3 months for colorectal cancers. Among patients with colorectal cancer, survival was significantly better for those who received intraperitoneal HIPEC with oxaliplatin (74.9 mo) compared with mitomycin C (29.1 mo) (p = 0.006). Complete cytoreductive surgery and low peritoneal carcinomatosis index were associated with the highest overall survival in patients with appendiceal tumours and those with colorectal tumours. Conclusion: CRS-HIPEC can be performed with acceptable morbidity in patients with PC. These results validate the outcomes of previously reported trials, but further prospective trials are warranted to determine which patients will most benefit from the addition of HIPEC to CRS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".