Improvements in 5-year Outcomes of Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Relative to Colon Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stage for stage, rectal cancer has historically been associated with inferior survival compared with colon cancer. Randomized trials of rectal cancer have generally demonstrated improvements in locoregional relapse but not survival. OBJECTIVE: We compared therapy and outcomes of colon versus rectal cancer in 2 time cohorts to determine if relative improvements have occurred. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage II/III colorectal cancer referred to the British Columbia Cancer Agency in 1989/1990 and 2001/2002 were identified. The higher of clinical or pathologic stage was used for patients receiving preoperative chemoradiation. Disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) were compared for rectal and colon cancer between the 2 cohorts. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1427 patients were included, with 375 from 1989/1990 and 1052 from 2001/2002. Between 1989/1990 and 2001/2002 there were significant increases in the use of perioperative chemotherapy for both rectal and colon cancer (P<0.001) and use of preoperative radiation therapy (P<0.001) and total mesorectal excision (P<0.001) in rectal cancer. DSS significantly improved for rectal (P<0.001) but not colon cancer (P=0.069). Five-year OS was significantly inferior for rectal versus colon cancer in 1989/1990 (46.1% vs. 57.2%, P=0.023) and was similar to that of colon cancer in 2001/2002 (63.7% vs. 66.2%, P=0.454). CONCLUSIONS: Advances in locoregional and systemic therapy significantly improved survival among patients with rectal cancer. DSS and OS are now similar between colon and rectal cancer for both stage II and III disease.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".