Survival and perioperative outcomes of octo- and nonagenarians with resectable esophageal carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The outcomes of different treatment modalities for patients aged 80 and above with locally advanced and resectable esophageal carcinoma are not well described. The aim of this study was to explore survival and perioperative outcomes among this specific group of patients. A retrospective, cohort analysis was performed on a prospectively maintained esophageal cancer database from the McGill regional upper gastroinestinal cancer network. Between 2010 and 2020, all patients ≥80 years with cT2-4a, Nany, M0 esophageal carcinoma were identified and stratified according to the treatment modality: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or chemoradiotherapy (nCRT); definitive CRT (dCRT); upfront surgery; palliative CT/RT; or best supportive care (BSC). Of the 162 patients identified, 79 were included in this study. The median age was 83 years (80-97), most were cT3 (73%), cN- (56%), and had adenocarcinoma (62%). Treatment included: nCT/nCRT (16/79, 20%); surgery alone (19/79, 24%); dCRT (12/29, 15%); palliative RT/CT (27/79, 34%); and BSC (5/79, 6%). Neoadjuvant treatment was completed in 10/16 (63%). Of the 35/79 who underwent surgery, major complications occurred in 13/35 (37%) and 90-day mortality in 3/35 (9%). Overall survival (OS) for the cohort at 1- and 3-years was 58% and 19%. Among patients treated with nCT/nCRT, this was 94% and 46% respectively. Curative intent treatment (nCT/nCRT/upfront surgery/dCRT) had significantly increased 1- and 3- year OS compared with non-curative treatment (76%/31% vs. 34%/3.3%). Multimodal standard of care treatment is feasible and safe in select octo/nonagenarians, and may be associated with improved OS. Age alone should not bias against treatment with curative intent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".