Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines for Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colorectal Cancer in a Canadian Province: A Population-Based Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommend adjuvant chemotherapy after curative-intent surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC). Studies have shown variable rates of adherence to adjuvant therapy CPGs. This study sought to determine the proportion of patients in Nova Scotia receiving CPG-concordant adjuvant chemotherapy within 12 weeks of surgery for CRC in 2001 to 2005, and to identify factors associated with chemotherapy receipt beyond 12 weeks from surgery or chemotherapy nonreceipt. METHODS: Patients with stages IIB or III colon or stages II or III rectal cancer who underwent curative-intent surgery in Nova Scotia were identified through the provincial cancer registry and anonymously linked to 14 administrative health databases. Chart review was conducted to obtain chemotherapy data and reasons for chemotherapy nonreceipt. Logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with receipt of chemotherapy and meeting the 12-week benchmark (P < .05). RESULTS: A total of 1,151 patients were identified, of whom 59% received chemotherapy. Factors predicting chemotherapy receipt were male sex, age < 75 years, no hospital readmission within 30 days of surgery, stage III disease, no prior cancer diagnosis, and rectal cancer. Of the 679 patients who received chemotherapy, 479 (72%) met the 12-week benchmark, with male sex, urban residence, less social deprivation, colon cancer and increased length of hospital stay as significant factors. Of the 472 patients who did not receive chemotherapy, the most common reason for nonreceipt was no consultation with a medical oncologist (53%). CONCLUSION: A number of factors influence adherence to adjuvant chemotherapy CPGs for CRC and should be incorporated in future work as novel regimens enter clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".