Time to adjuvant chemotherapy (TTAC) after open or laparoscopic resection surgeries in colorectal cancers (CRC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
768 Background: This single institution retrospective study evaluates the reason for delay in Time To Adjuvant Chemotherapy (TTAC) from curative resection surgery to start of adjuvant therapy in CRC. The reason for this study was to determine if type of surgery (laparoscopic versus open) increased TTAC of which evidence indicates poorer disease free survival and overall survival (Biagi J, Raphael M, Mackillop W, Kong W, King W, Booth C. Association between time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA, 305(22):2335-42. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.749.) Methods: CRC patients treated at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada were included if diagnosed with stage II or III disease, underwent curative resection surgery between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2012, and either received systemic adjuvant chemotherapy or surveillance protocol. Results: Among 259 patients, 92 patients (35.7%) underwent curative laparoscopic resection and 166 open resection (64.3%). Intraoperative and/or postoperative complications were experienced in 73 patients. Complications were less prevalent among patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery versus open resection (11.9% vs. 36.8%; p<0.0001). Of these 73 complications, wound infection (39.7%), intraoperative procedural complication (14.3%), and postoperative gastrointestinal complications (6.4%) were most prevalent. After adjusting for complication and clustering within the operating surgeon, there were no statistical differences in TTAC between open (51.310 ± 1.7 days) and laparoscopic (49.2 ± 1.6 days) resection surgeries (p=0.1996). However, presence of a complication was associated with delay in TTAC (HR 0.501; 95% CI, 0.43-0.58; p<0.001). Conclusions: TTAC in CRC patients does not differ statically for each type of resection surgery. However, presence of a complication is associated with delays in TTAC and is over three-fold more prevalent in open than laparoscopic resections. Therefore, there is an increased risk of delay in TTAC for open resection surgeries than laparoscopic resections due to a higher prevalence of surgical complications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".