Prognostic factors in patients with colorectal cancer and isolated potentially resectable or unresectable liver metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective : to evaluate prognostic factors in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and isolated liver metastases, and to analyze the role of systemic therapy in achieving resectability and the impact of surgical treatment on survival outcomes. Materials and methods . A retrospective study of 371 patients with mCRC and initially unresectable isolated liver metastases. Resectability was assessed by a multidisciplinary tumor board. Patients received systemic chemotherapy with targeted agents (bevacizumab or anti-EGFR). Progression-free survival (PFS), conversion rates, and prognostic factors were analyzed using univariate and multivariate methods. Results . The conversion rate to resectability was 60.1 % (potentially resectable metastases) and 25.9 % (unresectable metastases). Median PFS was 11.3 months (12.7 months for resectable vs. 10.5 months for unresectable). R 0 resection was achieved in 78.8 % and 72.4 % of patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified favorable prognostic factors: primary tumor resection and disease stabilization/partial response to therapy. Poor prognostic factors included unresectable metastases and limited/non-countable metastatic lesions. Conclusions . A combined systemic and surgical approach improves survival in mCRC patients, particularly after successful conversion of initially unresectable metastases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".