Early Discontinuation but Not the Timing of Adjuvant Therapy Affects Survival of Patients With High-Risk Colorectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy results in significant improvement in survival of patients with high-risk colorectal cancer. Little is known about the significance of timing and early discontinuation of adjuvant treatment in such patients. Our study aims to determine the prognostic impact of timing and completion of adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk colorectal cancer. METHODS: Medical records of patients with stage III colon and stage II/III rectal cancer diagnosed between 1993 and 2000 in the province of Saskatchewan were reviewed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the impact of timing and completion of adjuvant therapy on survival. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty-three eligible patients with a median age of 66 years were identified. Sixty-five percent patients received adjuvant <56 days after surgery and 79% patients completed planned treatment. Median follow-up was 54.6 months. Five-year disease-free survival and overall survival of patients who received adjuvant therapy <56 days after surgery was 54.6% and 59.5%, respectively, compared with 51.9% and 57.1%, respectively, of patients who received therapy ≥56 days after surgery (P = NS). The five-year disease disease-free survival and overall survival of patients who completed planned treatment was 56.7% and 62.3%, respectively, compared with 42.1% and 45%, respectively, of patients who required early treatment discontinuation (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, age ≥65 years, T4 tumor, grade 3 cancer, node-positive disease, rectal tumor, and early treatment discontinuation were identified as poor prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although time to adjuvant therapy following surgical resection did not impact the outcomes, failure to complete planned therapy was associated with adverse prognosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".