Achieving a Textbook Outcome in Colon Cancer Surgery Is Associated with Improved Long-Term Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Colon cancer surgery is a complex clinical pathway and traditional quality metrics may exhibit significant variability between hospitals and healthcare providers. The Textbook Outcome (TO) is a composite quality marker capturing the fraction of patients, in whom all desired short-term outcomes of care are realised. The aim of the present study was to assess the TO in a series of non-metastatic colon cancer patients treated with curative intent, with emphasis on long-term survival. Methods: Stage I–III colon cancer patients, who underwent curative colectomy following the Complete Mesocolic Excision principles, were retrospectively identified from the institutional database. TO was defined as (i) hospital survival, (ii) radical resection, (iii) no major complications, (iv) no reintervention, (v) no unplanned stoma and (vi) no prolonged hospital stay or readmission. Results: In total, 128 patients (male 61%, female 39%, mean age 70.7 ± 11.4 years) were included in the final analysis. Overall, 60.2% achieved a TO. The highest rates were observed for “hospital survival” and “no unplanned stoma” (96.9% and 97.7%), while the lowest rates were for “no major complications” and “no prolonged hospital stay” (69.5% and 75%). Older age, left-sided resections and pT4 tumours were factors limiting the chances of a TO. The 5-year overall and 5-year cancer-specific survival were significantly better in the TO versus non-TO subgroup (81% vs. 59%, p = 0.009, and 86% vs. 65%, p = 0.02, respectively). Conclusions: Outcomes in colon cancer surgery may be affected by patient-, doctor- and hospital-related factors. TO represents those patients who achieve the optimal perioperative results, and is furthermore associated with improved long-term cancer survival.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".