Timing of Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Survival in Patients with Stage II/III Rectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Treatment guidelines in the 1990s established surgery followed by chemoradiotherapy as the standard treatment for stage II/III rectal cancer. Our aim was to investigate the association between the timing of adjuvant treatment and patient survival in practice and identify demographic/clinical factors associated with treatment patterns. Methods: All residents of Alberta diagnosed with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma in 2000-2005 who had surgery were included in the study. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from the Alberta Cancer Registry and linked to hospital data and socioeconomic data from the 2001 Canadian Census. Overall and cancer-specific hazard ratios of death were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. Results: 1243 patients were included in the study; 636 (51%) patients received treatment consistent with guidelines. Patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy 12 - 16 weeks after surgery or more than 16 weeks/ did not receive it had a 43% and 58% higher risk of rectal cancer death, respectively, compared to those who received it within 8 weeks of surgery. Conclusion: Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III rectal cancer should be initiated within 12 weeks after surgery to maximize treatment benefits. Efforts to increase the proportion of patients treated within 12 weeks after surgery are needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".