Abstract P5-15-05: Applicability of Breast Cancer Guidelines and Knowledge Translation in a Community Oncology Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The quality of a guideline may impact adherence to that guideline. Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) produces guidelines to help manage all stages of disease. CCO's staging and follow-up guideline suggests patients (pts) with stage I breast cancer require no further staging investigations, bone scan for stage II disease, and for stage III disease in addition to bone scan, chest and abdominal imaging. The guideline on bisphosphonate (BP) use in metastatic breast cancer pts indicates that all pts with bone metastases should be offered a BP. We assessed the efficacy of knowledge translation of these guidelines at a community oncology centre by correlating rate of adherence with the quality of the guideline as scored using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. Methods: The quality of 2 breast cancer guidelines from CCO were assessed using the AGREE instrument. Two cohort studies of breast cancer pts seen were then conducted to evaluate the adherence to these guidelines. Specifically, staging investigations ordered on pts seen in our multidisciplinary clinic between January 2009 and April 2010 were recorded and correlated to pathological stage of disease. Our second cohort study reviewed breast cancer pts with bone metastases who died between 1999 and 2009, and initiation of a BP was recorded in order to determine adherence to the second guideline. Results: Inadequate adherence was identified and correlated with low applicability scores for these two guidelines (58% and 33% respectively). Only 68 pts (61%) with bone metastases received BP for treatment between 1999 to 2009. 129 pts (56%) underwent unnecessary staging investigations. Discussions: Non-chemotherapy breast cancer guidelines by CCO scored low in the field of applicability; this was confirmed by two retrospective cohort studies. Improvement in knowledge translation strategies are needed to improve adherence to practice guidelines set out by this national organization. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-15-05.
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 | 0.037 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".