MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1844854109 · doi:10.1002/cncr.27935

Association between adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment guidelines and improved survival in patients with colon cancer

2012· article· en· W1844854109 on OpenAlexaff
Genevieve M. Boland, George J. Chang, Alex B. Haynes, Yi‐Ju Chiang, Ryaz Chagpar, Yan Xing, Chung‐Yuan Hu, Barry W. Feig, Y. Nancy You, Janice N. Cormier

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineMedicaidCancerColorectal cancerInternal medicineCohortRelative survivalPopulationStage (stratigraphy)Multivariate analysisDiseaseOncologyCohort studyCancer registryHealth careEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to examine the impact of adherence to guidelines on stage-specific survival outcomes in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has established working, expert consensus, and evidence-based guidelines for organ-specific cancer care, including care of patients with colon cancer. METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with colon adenocarcinoma between 1998 and 2002 were selected from within the National Cancer Data Base. The cohort was limited to patients who received their first course of treatment at the reporting facility. Pathologic variables, including tumor depth, lymph node status, and evidence of metastatic disease, were used to restage patients, and the patients were divided into low-risk and high-risk categories on the basis of criteria defined by the NCCN. Relative survival rates were calculated for the entire cohort, stratified according to adherence versus nonadherence to NCCN treatment guidelines. RESULTS: In univariate analysis of treatment adherence patterns for both patient subgroups (high-risk stage II and stage III), several factors were associated with a higher rate of nonadherence in both groups, including older age (P < .001); Medicaid, Medicare, or uninsured status versus private insurance (P < .001); and subsequent treatment at a facility other than the facility at which the cancer was first diagnosed (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, multiple factors were associated with differences in relative survival, although analyses that included the year of diagnosis did not demonstrate significant differences over time. CONCLUSIONS: The current study documented practice patterns in a heterogeneous population of patients with colon cancer and demonstrated a survival benefit for patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer who received treatment that adhered to NCCN guidelines. These data validate the current NCCN practice guidelines for colon cancer and support the concept of guideline-based metrics that can be compared across institutions to assess the quality of cancer care and to compare the quality of cancer care among institutions.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations245
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207