Colorectal Cancer Surgery in Elderly Patients: Presentation, Treatment, and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was designed to characterize the presentation, care, and outcomes of persons older than 75 years, compared with persons 50 to 74 years of age, selected for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients over the age of 50 years who had surgery for colon or rectal cancer at the Mount Sinai Hospital between 1997 and 2006 were identified. Data were obtained from a colorectal cancer database and from office and hospital records. Patients were assigned to two groups: 50 to 74 years old and 75 years and older. RESULTS: There were 623 patients in the younger group (mean age, 62.6 years) and 275 in the older group (mean age, 81.5 years). The in-hospital mortality rate was 1% in the younger group compared with 4.2% in the older (P = 0.002). The overall five-year survival was 68.7% and 57.3% in the younger and older groups, respectively, whereas colorectal cancer-specific five-year survival was not significantly different (74.0% vs. 74.7%). There were significant differences between the two groups with respect to cancer location, American Society of Anesthesiologists' score, stage, proportion detected by screening, length of stay, and use of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term colorectal cancer-related outcomes in the older group are similar to the outcomes in younger patients, suggesting that the decision to operate should not be based on age alone.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".