Paracentesis for cancer-related ascites in palliative care: An international, prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Paracentesis is commonly undertaken in patients with cancer-related ascites. Aim: To systematically investigate the symptomatic benefits and harms experienced by patients with cancer undergoing paracentesis using real-world data in the palliative care setting. Design: Prospective, multisite, observational, consecutive cohort study. Benefits and harms of paracentesis were assessed between 01/07/2018 and 31/02/2021 as part of routine clinical assessments by treating clinicians at four timepoints: (T0) before paracentesis; (T1) once drainage ceased; (T2) 24 h after T1 and (T3) 28 days after T1 or next paracentesis, if sooner. Setting/participants: Data were collected from 11 participating sites across five countries (Australia, England, Hong Kong, Malaysia and New Zealand) on 111 patients undergoing paracentesis via a temporary (73%) or indwelling (21%) catheter: 51% male, median age 69 years, Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Score 50. Results: At T1 ( n = 100), symptoms had improved for most patients (81%), specifically abdominal distension (61%), abdominal pain (49%) and nausea (27%), with two-thirds experiencing improvement in ⩾2 symptoms. In the remaining patients, symptoms were unchanged (7%) or worse (12%). At least one harm occurred in 32% of patients, the most common being an ascitic leak ( n = 14). By T3, 89% of patients had experienced some benefit and 36% some harm, including four patients who experienced serious harm, one of which was a fatal bowel perforation. Conclusion: Most patients obtained rapid benefits from paracentesis. Harms were less frequent and generally mild, but occasionally serious and fatal. Our findings help inform clinician-patient discussions about the potential outcomes of paracentesis in this frail population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".