MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412654534 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32070408

Surgical Management of Desmoid Tumors—Patient Selection, Timing, and Approach

2025· review· en· W4412654534 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Catherine Sarre Lazcano, Alessandro Gronchi

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSoft tissue tumor case studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNatural historyQuality of life (healthcare)Multidisciplinary approachSurgical resectionIntensive care medicineDiseasePatient careGeneral surgerySurgeryPathologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Desmoid tumors are rare, deep-seated myofibroblastic tumors with an unpredictable course, ranging from spontaneous regression to infiltrative growth and locally aggressive behavior, but without metastatic potential. Over the past few decades, advances in understanding their natural history, underlying molecular pathways, and patient care priorities have shifted the treatment paradigm from upfront surgical resection to initial active surveillance, with further treatment dictated by continuous disease progression or associated symptoms. However, there are still specific scenarios where surgery continues to play an important role in locoregional treatment and symptom control. This article will focus on current treatment strategies and surgical indications in adult patients with desmoid tumors, emphasizing patient selection, anatomic site-specific considerations, and surgical technique. Understanding the nuanced role of surgery within the growing treatment landscape is key for individualized patient care in a multidisciplinary setting to optimize quality of life and long-term outcomes.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicSoft tissue tumor case studiesFrench-language works237,207