Long-Term Outcomes following Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Carcinomatosis of Colorectal Origin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a major treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (CPC). The aim was to determine the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing CRS–HIPEC for CPC and factors associated with long-term survival (LTS). Methods: consecutive CPC patients who underwent CRS–HIPEC at a HIPEC center between 2007 and 2021 were included. Actual survival was calculated, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with OS, DFS and LTS. Results: there were 125 patients with CPC who underwent primary CRS–HIPEC, with mean age of 54.5 years. Median follow-up was 31 months. Average intraoperative PCI was 11, and complete cytoreduction (CC-0) was achieved in 96.8%. Median OS was 41.6 months (6–196). The 2-year and 5-year OS were 68% and 24.8%, respectively, and the 2-year DFS was 28.8%. Factors associated with worse OS included pre-HIPEC systemic therapy, synchronous extraperitoneal metastasis, and PCI ≥ 20 (p < 0.05). Progression prior to CRS–HIPEC was associated with worse DFS (p < 0.05). Lower PCI, fewer complications, lower recurrence and longer DFS were associated with LTS (p < 0.05). Conclusion: CRS and HIPEC improve OS in CPC patients but they have high disease recurrence. Outcomes depend on preoperative therapy response, extraperitoneal metastasis, and peritoneal disease burden.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".