Predictors of colorectal cancer surveillance among survivors of childhood cancer treated with radiation: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer survivors treated with radiotherapy to a field including the colon or rectum have an elevated risk of developing radiation-induced colorectal cancer (CRC). The Children's Oncology Group recommends colonoscopy every 5 years beginning at age 35 years for at-risk survivors. METHODS: Analyses included 702 five-year survivors (Childhood Cancer Survivor Study) aged ≥36 years who received ≥30 gray of abdominal, pelvic, or spinal radiotherapy. Multivariate generalized linear models were used to calculate relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for adherence to the Children's Oncology Group's CRC surveillance recommendations. RESULTS: With a median age of 43 years (range, 36-58 years), 29.5% of the survivors (207 of 702 survivors) met surveillance recommendations. In multivariate analyses, age ≥50 years versus age 36 to 49 years (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.0-3.4), reporting a routine cancer follow-up visit within 1 year before the study (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2), reporting ≥10 physician visits within the past year versus 0 to 9 visits (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7), and discussing future cancer risk with a physician at the time of the most recent follow-up visit (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7) were found to be associated with adherence to CRC surveillance recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Greater than 70% of survivors at an increased risk of CRC were not screened as recommended. Regular physician contact and discussion of screening were associated with a 60% increase in CRC surveillance. Educational interventions targeted at survivors and their primary care physicians are needed to heighten knowledge of CRC risk after radiotherapy and the importance of appropriate surveillance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".