Management and Outcomes in Anal Canal Adenocarcinomas—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Anal canal adenocarcinomas constitute 1% of all gastrointestinal tract cancers. There is a current lack of consensus and NICE guidelines in the United Kingdom regarding the management of this disease. The overall objective was to perform a systematic review on the multitude of practice and subsequent outcomes in this group. (2) Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE and CINAHL databases were interrogated between 2011 to 2021. PRISMA guidelines were used to select relevant studies. The primary outcome measure was 5-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcome measures included both local recurrences (LR) and distant metastases (DM). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of studies retrieved. The study was registered on PROSPERO (338286). (3) Results: Fifteen studies were included. Overall, there were 11,967 participants who were demographically matched. There were 2090 subjects in the largest study and five subjects in the smallest study. Treatment modalities varied from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), CRT and surgery (CRT + S), surgery then CRT (S + CRT) and surgery only (S). Five-year OS ranged from 30.2% to 91% across the literature. LR rates ranged from 22% to 29%; DM ranged from 6% to 60%. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. (4) Conclusions: Trimodality treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by radical surgery of abdominoperineal excision of rectum (APER) appeared to be the most effective approach, giving the best survival outcomes according to the current data.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".