Cohort study evaluating the impact of a discharge letter (DL) compared with usual care on adherence to surveillance following treatment for stage II/III colorectal cancer (CRC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
620 Background: The 2005 ASCO guidelines recommend surveillance testing and frequencies following surgical +/− adjuvant therapy for stage II/III CRC. In Canada, many patients are discharged from their oncologist to their primary care physician (PCP) for ongoing surveillance. However, adherence to surveillance recommendations is low. This cohort study evaluated adherence to surveillance 1 year after treatment of stage II/III CRC prior to and following implementation of a DL. Methods: Cohort 1 (C1) patients were retrospectively identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry following adjuvant therapy (as applicable) at a tertiary cancer centre (07/2006 - 09/2007). Cohort 2 (C2) patients were prospectively identified from the Registry and clinic records following adjuvant therapy (as applicable), as those discharged from the centre (10/2007 - 4/2009); DL was sent to the patient and PCP recommending surveillance tests and dates. Clinical, laboratory, diagnostic imaging, and endoscopy data was collated. Adherence at 1 year follow-up was compared between cohorts using Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analyses. Results: C1 (n=218) was larger than C2 (n=114) despite the longer accrual time for C2. There were no differences between cohorts by age, sex, primary site of disease, stage, or adjuvant oxaliplatin use. During year 1 of follow-up, 11.8% and 11.4% recurred (local or metastatic) and 6.5% and 2.7% died (p=0.1) in C1 and C2 respectively. Comparing C1 with C2, 14.8% vs. 23.0% of patients had one CEA test within 3 months, 45.2% vs. 72.2% within 6 months, and 71.7% vs. 85.1% within 1 year (p<0.001). Only 44.0% (C1) and 68.6% (C2) had 2 CEA tests within 1 year. Only 3.9% (C1) vs. 6.6% (C2) of patients had 4 CEA tests within the year following treatment as recommended. The rate of CT imaging was 32.3% (C1) and 56.1% (C2); endoscopy was 36.7% (C1) and 42.1% (C2). Conclusions: Implementation of a DL improved compliance with surveillance at 1 year of follow-up following discharge from a tertiary cancer centre, although optimal adherence remains low. However, adherence to CT imaging nearly doubled. Evaluation of compliance at 3 years of follow-up is ongoing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".