MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378173354 · doi:10.1002/jso.27359

A prediction model to refine the timing of an early second‐look laparoscopic exploration in patients with colon cancer at high risk of early peritoneal metastasis recurrence

2023· article· en· W4378173354 on OpenAlexaff
Jade Fawaz, Marc Pocard, Gabriel Liberale, Clarisse Eveno, Brice Malgras, Lucas Sidéris, Martin Hübner, Charles Sabbagh, Olivia Sgarbură, Abdelkader Taïbi, Christian Hobeika

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalProportional hazards modelColorectal cancerGastroenterologyKRASMetastasisClinical endpointLogistic regressionSurgeryOncologyCancerRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In patients at high risk of peritoneal metastasis (PM) recurrence following surgical treatment of colon cancer (CC), second-look laparoscopic exploration (SLLE) is mandatory; however, the best timing is unknown. We created a tool to refine the timing of early SLLE in patients at high risk of PM recurrence. METHODS: This international cohort study included patients who underwent CC surgery between 2009 and 2020. All patients had PM recurrence. Factors associated with PM-free survival (PMFS) were assessed using Cox regression. The primary endpoint was early PM recurrence defined as a PMFS of <6 months. A model (logistic regression) was fitted and corrected using bootstrap. RESULTS: In total, 235 patients were included. The median PMFS was 13 (IQR, 8-22) months, and 15.7% of the patients experienced an early PM recurrence. Synchronous limited PM and/or ovarian metastasis (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.66-3.78]; p < 0.001) were associated with a very high-risk status requiring SLLE. T4 (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: [1.03-2.11]; p = 0.036), transverse tumor localization (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: [0.17-0.69]; p = 0.002), emergency surgery (HR: 2.06; 95% CI: [1.36-3.13]; p < 0.001), mucinous subtype (HR: 0.50; 95% CI [0.30, 0.82]; p = 0.006), microsatellite instability (HR: 2.29; 95% CI [1.06, 4.93]; p = 0.036), KRAS mutation (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: [1.24-2.55]; p = 0.002), and complete protocol of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: [0.89-0.96]; p < 0.001) were also prognostic factors for PMFS. Thus, a model was fitted (area under the curve: 0.87; 95% CI: [0.82-0.92]) for prediction, and a cutoff of 150 points was identified to classify patients at high risk of early PM recurrence. CONCLUSION: Using a nomogram, eight prognostic factors were identified to select patients at high risk for early PM recurrence objectively. Patients reaching 150 points could benefit from an early SLLE.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgical OncologySame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207