Risk of colorectal cancer after the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A rigorous assessment of the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) among prostate cancer (PC) survivors that controls for important confounding factors and competing risks is necessary to determine the risk of CRC in this population and to inform screening guidelines. METHODS: With data from Manitoba, Canada, subjects diagnosed with PC as their first cancer between 1987 and 2009 were age-matched with up to 5 men with no history of invasive cancer on the PC diagnosis date. Subjects were followed to the date of diagnosis of CRC or another cancer, death, emigration, or the study endpoint (December 31, 2009). Competing risk proportional hazards models were used to compare the CRC incidence between those with PC and those without PC with the following model covariates: history of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, frequency of health care visits, diabetes, and socioeconomic status. Mutually exclusive competing outcomes included CRC, another primary cancer, and death. RESULTS: For a total of 559,081 person-years, 14,164 men with PC and 69,051 men without PC were followed. Men diagnosed with PC had an increased risk of a subsequent diagnosis of CRC (all CRC: hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.27; rectal cancer: HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.09-1.71). The treatment of PC with radiation was associated with an increased risk for rectal cancer (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.42-2.99) in comparison with PC cases not treated with radiation. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of CRC is increased after a diagnosis of PC and is highest for rectal cancer among those treated with radiation. CRC screening should be considered soon after the diagnosis of PC, especially for men planning for radiotherapy.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".