Therapeutic Strategies and Oncological Outcome of Peritoneal Metastases from Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The peritoneum is an unusual site of metastases from lung cancer, and optimal management at the moment remains unclear and mostly based on palliative strategies. Therefore, the aim of the study was to investigate demographic characteristics, management and overall survival of patients with peritoneal metastases from lung cancer (PCLC). A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and pooled analysis was performed searching all English studies published until December 2022. PROSPERO, CRD42022349362. Inclusion criteria were original articles including patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from lung cancer, specifying at least one outcome of interest. Exclusion criteria were being unable to retrieve patient data from articles, and the same patient series included in different studies. Among 1746 studies imported for screening, twenty-one were included (2783 patients). Mean overall survival was between 0.5 and 5 months after peritoneal carcinomatosis diagnosis and 9 and 21 months from lung cancer diagnosis. In total, 27% of patients underwent first-line or palliative chemotherapy and 7% of them surgery. Management differs significantly among published studies. The literature on PCLC is scarce. Its incidence is low but appears to be substantially rising and is likely to be an underestimation. Prognosis is very poor and therapeutic strategies have been limited and used in a minority of patients. Subcategories of PCLC patients may have an improved prognosis and may benefit from an aggressive oncological approach, including cytoreductive surgery. Further investigation would be needed in this regard.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".