Outcomes of gynecological and breast cancer among female patients with cirrhosis: Scoping review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The incidence of gynecological and breast cancers is on the rise in addition to a rise in the incidence of cirrhosis among women. Women with cirrhosis are generally excluded from clinical trials therefore little is known about the oncologic and/or liver-related outcomes in this population. The aim of this study was to review the current literature regarding treatment and survival outcomes in females with gynecological or breast cancer with underlying cirrhosis. Methods: An electronic search was conducted for studies reporting outcomes among females with cirrhosis and gynecological and breast cancer. References were reviewed for relevant publications. Studies were reviewed and data were extracted from publications. Results: Three thousand one hundred ninety one articles were identified, and five studies were reviewed in full. Thirty unique patients were identified. Ten patients with breast cancer were identified, 9/10 patients did not have cancer recurrence in the follow-up period, and 1/10 did not have follow up. 1/10 patient's received chemotherapy and developed degree II abnormal liver function and bone marrow suppression. 2/9 patients experienced postoperative complications, one had worsening thrombocytopenia and one developed mild encephalopathy. Nienteen patients with ovarian cancer all received surgery and chemotherapy. 10/19 had postoperative complications and 1/19 died in follow-up period. One patient had a neuroendocrine uterine cancer stage IV who died after one cycle of chemotherapy. Conclusion: There is limited data on the outcomes and management of patients with both cirrhosis and gynecological or breast cancers. Therefore, further work is necessary to address these gaps in clinical practice to improve patient care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".