Single-Stage Posterior Approach for the En Bloc Resection and Spinal Reconstruction of T4 Pancoast Tumors Invading the Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients who had T4 Pancoast tumors invading the spine and underwent en bloc resection and spinal stabilization through a single-stage posterior approach. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Surgical resection for Pancoast tumors affecting the spine has been successfully performed in two stages involving spinal reconstruction and tumor resection. However, reports have rarely presented the results of en bloc resection combined with spinal stabilization for T4 Pancoast tumors invading the spine through a single-stage posterior approach. METHODS: Patients who had T4N0M0 Pancoast tumors invading the spine and underwent a single-stage posterior approach were retrospectively recruited. The following data were obtained and examined: demographics, tumor histology, preoperative and postoperative therapy, complications, spinal reconstruction technique, tumor resection extent, survival time, and disease recurrence. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were included. The mean population age was 61±17 years, and the most common pathological type was adenocarcinoma (61.1%). Complete resection (R0) was obtained in 15 patients (83.3%), positive surgical margins (R1) were found in three patients (16.7%), and the 90-day mortality rate was 0%. Postoperative major complications were detected in 12 patients (66.7%), who required reoperation. The mean survival time was 67±24 months, but the median survival time was not reached. Among the patients, 10 (55.6%) are still alive at the end of the study. The 2- and 5-year actual survival rates were 59% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.7%-82.3%) and 52.5% (95% CI, 28.4%-76.6%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: En bloc resection and spinal stabilization through a single-stage posterior approach might be effective for T4 Pancoast tumors invading the spine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".