Effect of Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference on Treatment Plan for Patients With Primary Rectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although multidisciplinary cancer conferences have been reported to lead to improved patient outcomes, few studies have reported results of these for rectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to assess the quality of multidisciplinary cancer conferences, the effect of the conference on the initial treatment plan, compliance with the conference treatment recommendations, and clinical outcomes for rectal cancer. DESIGN: This was a prospective, longitudinal study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary care academic hospital. PATIENTS: Patients with primary rectal cancer were included in this study. INTERVENTION: The intervention was a rectal cancer-specific multidisciplinary cancer conference. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality of the multidisciplinary cancer conference was assessed using the Cancer Care Ontario Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference standards score. A change in treatment plan was defined as a change from the initial treatment plan selected by the treating physician to an alternate treatment plan recommended at the conference. RESULTS: Twenty-five multidisciplinary cancer conferences were conducted over a 10-month study period. The Cancer Care Ontario Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference standards score was 7 (from a maximum score of 9). Forty-two patients with primary rectal cancer were presented, and there was a 29% (12/42) change in the initial treatment plan. A total of 42% (5/12) of these changes were attributed to reinterpretation of the MRI findings. There was 100% compliance with the conference treatment recommendations. The circumferential resection margin was positive in 5.5% (2/36). LIMITATIONS: Selection bias may have led to an overestimate of effect, and there is no control group for comparison of clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A high-quality rectal cancer-specific multidisciplinary cancer conference led to a 29% change in the treatment plan for patients with primary rectal cancer, with almost half of these changes attributed to reinterpretation of the magnetic resonance images.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".