MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320864249 · doi:10.1097/as9.0000000000000203

Treatment Response After Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for Peritoneal Metastases of Colorectal Originf

2022· article· en· W4320864249 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Martin Hübner, S. P. Somashekhar, Hugo Teixeira Farinha, J. Abba, Ramya Rao, Mohammad Alyami, Wouter Willaert

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchCentre Hospitalier Universitaire VaudoisUniversité de LyonHospices Civils de LyonUniversité de Lausanne
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIInterquartile rangeCohortInternal medicineChemotherapyRetrospective cohort studyStage (stratigraphy)Colorectal cancerSurgeryGastroenterologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The objective of this study is to analyze oncological outcomes of patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) of colorectal origin treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC). Background: PIPAC has been demonstrated to be a feasible and safe novel treatment for patients with PM of various origins. Only small series reports on survival after PIPAC by disease entity. Methods: International retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with PM of colorectal origin. Outcome measures were overall survival (OS), radiological response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), histological response (peritoneal regression grading score [PRGS]: complete response: 1–4: no response), change of peritoneal cancer index (PCI), and symptom control. Results: Seventeen eligible centers compiled 256 non-selected patients (mean age 61 [50.6–69.2], 43% female) and 606 procedures. Sixty-three percent were treated after 2 lines of chemotherapy, median PCI at PIPAC1 was 18 (interquartile range [IQR] = 10–27). Median OS was 19.00 months (IQR = 12.9–29.8) from diagnosis and 9.4 months (IQR = 4.5–16.8) from PIPAC1. One hundred and four of 256 patients (40.6%) had ≥3 procedures (per protocol [pp]) with the following outcomes at PIPAC3: RECIST: 59.3% partial response/stable, 40.7% progression; mean PRGS: 2.1 ± 0.9. Median PCI was 21 (IQR = 15–29) at baseline and 20 (IQR = 12–27) at PIPAC3 ( P = 0.02). Fifty-six (54%) and 48 (46%) patients were symptomatic at baseline and PIPAC3, respectively ( P = 0.267). Median OS for the pp cohort was 11.9 months (IQR = 10.7–15.0) from PIPAC1. Independent predictors for survival were radiological response (HR = 3.0; 95% CI = 1.6–5.7) and no symptoms (HR = 4.5, 95% CI = 2.2–9.1) at PIPAC3. Conclusions: Objective treatment response and encouraging survival were demonstrated after PIPAC for colorectal PM. Prospective registry data and comparative studies are now needed in to confirm these 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Surgery OpenSame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207