Effect of changes in treatment practice on survival for cervical cancer: results from a population-based study in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Results from clinical trials in the 1990s led to changes in the recommended treatment for the standard therapy for stage IIB-IVA cervical cancer from radiotherapy alone to chemo-radiotherapy. We conducted the first population-based study in Canada to investigate temporal treatment patterns for cervical cancer and long-term survival in relation to these changes in the treatment guidelines. METHODS: Detailed information on stage and treatment for 1085 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer in 1984-2008 and identified from the population-based Manitoba Cancer Registry (MCR) in Canada was obtained from clinical chart review and the MCR. Factors associated with receiving guideline treatment were identified using logistic regression. All cause and cervical cancer specific survival were compared in patients who were and were not treated as recommended in the guidelines, using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 6.4 years (range: 0.05-26.5 years). The proportion of women who received guideline treatment was 79 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 76-81 %). However, the likelihood of being treated according to the guidelines over time was modified by age (p < 0.0001) and tumour stage at diagnosis (p = 0.002). Women who were treated according to the guidelines after the change in recommended clinical practice (1999-2008) had a significantly lower risk of death from all causes and from cervical cancer. This was driven by lower mortality rates in cases with stage IIB-IVA tumours (all causes of death: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, 95 % CI: 0.43-0.82, p = 0.002; cervical cancer related death: HR = 0.64, 95 % CI: 0.44-0.93, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The management of cervical cancer patients in Manitoba, Canada was in good agreement with treatment guidelines although reasons for departure from the guideline recommendations could not be examined further due to lack of data. Treatment of stage IIB-IVA cervical cancers with recommended concurrent chemo-radiotherapy, which is now standard practice, was associated with substantially increased survival, although the effect of changes in clinical practice including maintenance of haemoglobin levels on improved survival cannot be ruled out as a contributing factor.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".