Cancer Referral and Treatment Activity 2010–2015: A Population-Based Study from Vancouver Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The years since 2005 have seen major changes in cancer treatment and significant increases in the number of anticancer drugs available. However, there are relatively few published data to reflect how those changes are affecting the activity and workload of oncology services. To explore the effects of those changes, we reviewed the population-based cancer treatment activity on Vancouver Island for the period 2010-2015. METHODS: Information about new patient referrals, radiation courses, new chemotherapy cycles commenced, total intravenous (IV) chemotherapy treatment visits, and pharmacy activity for oral anticancer drug prescriptions was obtained from BC Cancer Agency databases. RESULTS: During the 5-year study period, the Vancouver Island population increased by 2.8% and the number of new referrals to the BC Cancer Agency increased by 17.7%. The overall number of radiation courses increased by 6.1%. In contrast, IV chemotherapy activity increased by 52.1% for new courses commenced and by 62% for total IV chemotherapy attendances. Oral anticancer drug prescriptions rose by 22.9% during the 5-year period. CONCLUSIONS: Our study documents substantial recent increases in cancer therapy activity in terms of patient referrals and particularly IV chemotherapy and oral anticancer therapy. The data reported here could be of value in planning for future care provision.
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) | 0.001 | 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".