Right Hemicolectomy and Appendicectomy as Treatments for Goblet Cell Adenocarcinoma: A Comparative Analysis of Two Large National Databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Right hemicolectomy (RHC) remains the treatment standard for goblet cell adenocarcinoma (GCA), despite limited evidence supporting survival benefit. This study aims to explore factors influencing surgical management and survival outcomes among patients treated with RHC or appendicectomy using NCRAS (UK) and SEER (USA) data. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using 998 (NCRAS) and 1703 (SEER) cases. Factors influencing procedure type were explored using logistic regression analyses. Overall survival (OS) probabilities and Kaplan-Meier (KM) plots were generated using KM analysis and the log-rank test compared survival between groups. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess hazard ratios. RESULTS: The NCRAS analysis revealed that age and regional stage disease were determinants of undergoing RHC, with all age groups showing similar odds of receiving RHC, excluding the 75+ age group. The SEER analysis revealed tumour size > 2 cm, and receipt of chemotherapy were determinants of undergoing RHC, unlike the distant stage, which was associated with appendicectomy. Surgery type was not a significant predictor of OS in both analyses. In NCRAS, age and stage were significant predictors of OS. In SEER, age, stage, and Black race were significant predictors of worse OS. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows variations in the surgical management of GCA, with limited evidence to support a widespread recommendation for RHC.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".