Prognostic factors after therapeutic bronchoscopy for tracheo- or broncho-oesophageal fistulas: results from the EpiGETIF registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Treatment of malignant tracheo- or broncho-oesophageal fistulas (TOF) using therapeutic bronchoscopy (TB) is not standardised and its outcomes are poorly described. This study aimed to analyse the characteristics of patients treated with TB for a TOF and to identify prognostic factors. Methods We analysed data from 96 patients undergoing TB for TOF entered in the EpiGETIF registry between January 2019 and December 2022. Results The mean age was 61.4 years. Median survival after TB was 2.40 months (95% CI 1.81–3.32). Histology was mainly represented by oesophageal (72%) and lung (23%) cancers and did not influence prognosis (p=0.15), whereas smoking did (2.17 versus 3.32 months for nonsmokers, p=0.04). Patients with poor performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group >2) had shorter survival (1.99 versus 3.02 months, p=0.04). 69% of patients had already received oncologic treatment, with no difference in survival (3.02 versus 2.21 months for treatment-naive patients, p=0.14). Neither the localisation (trachea 61.5%, left main bronchus 34.4%, other 4.1%) nor the size of the fistulas (23% <5 mm, 20% 5–10 mm, 54% >10 mm) impacted survival (p=0.91 and p=0.83, respectively). An airway stent (AS) was placed in 92.7% of patients, mainly self-expanding metallic stents (45%). Patients treated with both an oesophageal stent and AS had a better prognosis than patients treated with an AS alone (2.88 versus 1.77 months, respectively, p=0.02). Conclusion Survival of patients treated with TB for a TOF is very poor, and is impacted by smoking, performance status and the presence of an oesophageal stent.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".