Adjuvant chemotherapy use and outcomes of patients with high‐risk versus low‐risk stage II colon cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is frequently considered in patients with stage II colon cancer who are considered to be at high risk. However, to the authors' knowledge, the survival benefits associated with AC in these patients remain largely unproven. In the current study, the authors sought to examine the use of AC in patients with AJCC stage II colon cancer and to compare the impact of AC on outcomes in patients with high-risk versus low-risk disease in a population-based setting. METHODS: Patients with stage II colon cancer who were evaluated at 1 of 5 regional cancer centers in British Columbia from 1999 to 2008 were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used to correlate high-risk versus low-risk status and receipt of AC with recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 1697 patients were identified: 1286 (76%) with high-risk and 411 (24%) with low-risk disease, among whom 373 (29%) and 51 (12%),respectively, received AC. Individuals with high-risk disease treated with AC were younger (median age, 62 years vs 72 years; P<.001) and had better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0/1: 47% vs 33%; P = .001). For high-risk patients, AC was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.50-0.83 [P = .001]). However, no significant benefits with regard to RFS or DSS were observed. Subgroup analyses revealed that AC in patients with T4 disease was associated with significantly improved RFS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.95 [P = .03]), DSS (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.93 [P = .02]), and OS (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33-0.77 [P = .002]). For patients with low-risk disease, AC was associated with inferior RFS (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.00-4.79 [P = .05]) and DSS (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.10-8.23 [P = .03]). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based analysis, AC was associated with an OS advantage in high-risk patients, most likely due to patient selection. RFS, DSS, and OS benefits were mainly observed in patients with T4 disease, suggesting a limited role for AC in patients deemed to be high risk by non-T4 features.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".