MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400924261 · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000006449

Impact of Positive Resection Margins on Recurrence and Survival After Resection and Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer

2024· article· en· W4400924261 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aurélien Lambert, Julia Salleron, Alexandre Harlé, James Biagi, Agnès Leroux, Jacques Thomas, Laure Monard, Jérôme Cros, Frédéric Marchal, Ahmet Ayav, Thierry Conroy

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineInternal medicinePancreatic cancerResection marginChemotherapyOncologyRegimenAdenocarcinomaGastroenterologySurgeryCancerResection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the correlation between positive resection margins and outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy according to the pivotal trial PRODIGE 24-CCTG PA-6. BACKGROUND: The primary focus is on elucidating the prognostic significance of specific resection margins, including those associated with the superior-mesenteric vein, medial, and posterior pancreas. METHODS: The analysis involved 400 patients across multiple centers in France and Canada. Surgical resection and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy were core interventions. This study assessed the prognostic impact of resection margins, highlighting the significance of standardized pathology assessments. In addition, the influence of chemotherapy regimen choice, comparing gemcitabine to mFOLFIRINOX, on the implications of positive resection margins was examined. RESULTS: Only 3 margins, superior-mesenteric vein [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.48 (95% CI: 1.11; 1.96); P < 0.001], medial [HR = 1.92 (95% CI: 1.36; 2.73); P < 0.001] and posterior [HR = 1.65 (95% CI: 1.21; 2.24); P = 0.002], had a significant prognostic impact on disease-free survival and were sufficient compared with the 7 recommended margins (Kappa = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87; 0.94). R1 status was a significant independent prognostic factor for poorer survival in gemcitabine-treated patients [HR = 1.97 (95% CI: 1.23; 3.16); P = 0.005] but lost its significance with mFOLFIRINOX [HR = 1.46 (95% CI: 0.91; 2.35); P = 0.114]. CONCLUSIONS: All efforts should be made to evaluate the 3 margins of the highest prognostic value, with the others being secondary. A key finding of this study is the likely effect of mFOLFIRINOX on local invasion in operated patients, which seems to correct the impairment related to margin involvement, probably explaining the improvements in disease-free survival and overall survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of SurgerySame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207