Family History of Colorectal Cancer Is Not Associated with Colorectal Cancer Survival Regardless of Microsatellite Instability Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer in first-degree relatives have an elevated risk of developing colorectal cancer themselves, particularly colorectal cancer exhibiting high microsatellite instability (MSI-high). Given that MSI-high colorectal cancer is associated with a favorable prognosis, it is plausible that having a family history of colorectal cancer could, in turn, be favorably associated with colorectal cancer survival. METHODS: This study comprised N = 4,284 incident colorectal cancer cases enrolled in the Colon Cancer Family Registry via population-based cancer registries. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we evaluated the association between family history and both overall and disease-specific survival, accounting for MSI status and tumor site via stratified analyses and statistical adjustment. RESULTS: There was no evidence of association between family history and overall [hazard ratio (HR), 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-1.08] or disease-specific survival (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.24) for all cases combined, after adjustment for MSI status or tumor site. Only for rectal cancer cases was colorectal cancer family history modestly associated with more favorable overall survival (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Although individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer were more likely to have MSI-high tumors than those with nonfamilial disease, this did not translate to a survival benefit. IMPACT: Overall, there is no evidence that family history of colorectal cancer is associated with colorectal cancer survival; however, specific mechanisms underlying family history may have prognostic impact and merit further study.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".