MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Quality of life (QOL) in patients with esophageal cancer treated with radiation (RT) in the radical setting.

2015· article· en· W2589249052 on OpenAlexaff
Anita Choudhary, Geoffrey Liu, Pravin Philip Chacko, Ehab Fadhel, Charles Cho, Rachel Woo, Agnes Cheung, Catherine Vanderwater, Cindy Xin, Wei Xu, Jason Wong, Alex Pui‐Wai Lee, Zahra Kassam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoSouthlake Regional Health Center
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNauseaVomitingQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineEsophageal cancerGastroenterologyRadiation therapyCohortCancerProspective cohort studySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

186 Background: QOL is poorly documented in patients with esophageal carcinoma treated with curative intent, especially trimodality therapy. QOL and survival outcomes were evaluated in a single centre prospective cohort study of esophageal carcinoma patients treated with RT in the radical setting. Methods: Patients completed the EORTC-QLQC30 at baseline, the end of RT, 6 months and 1 year after RT. A 10-point difference in scores was considered clinically significant. Results: Thirty-three of 45 consequently treated patients between February 2012 and June 2014 participated, all male, median age 63 years (range 40-76), with T1-4N1-3M0 disease (AJCC 7thedn), median follow up 0.9 years (range 0.1-2.3). Four patients were treated definitively with chemoradiation 45-50Gy in 25 fractions; 14 neoadjuvantly 45-50Gy in 25 fractions; 15 neoadjuvantly 41.4Gy in 23 fractions, with concurrent chemotherapy. Compliance for questionnaire completion was 80-100%. 2 year overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) were 77% and 63%. Median scores on role, social, fatigue and appetite showed clinically significant worsening at the end of RT; in addition statistical significance was found for global QOL, physical, nausea/vomiting, and shortness of breath [median difference (MD): global -8.3 p=0.004, physical -6.6 p=0.003, role -16.6 p=0.001, social -16.6 p=0.78, nausea/vomiting 8.3 p=0.02, fatigue 22.2 p=0.001, shortness of breath 0 p=0.037, appetite 33.3 p=0.009]. At 6 months post RT global QOL (MD -16.6 p=0.23), physical (MD -13.3 p=0.007), role (MD -16.7 p=0.11) and fatigue (MD 11.1 p=0.18) were clinically significantly depressed. At one year all scores had returned to baseline, except pain, which was clinically significantly worse (MD 16.7 p=0.41); 64% of the cohort reported worse pain compared to baseline. Although global QOL on average returned to normal, 46% reported this to be clinically worse at one year compared to baseline. No association was found between baseline global QOL and OS (p=0.15) or DFS (p=0.57). Conclusions: QOL was worsened in several domains during and up to 6 months post RT. At one year all scores had returned to baseline except for pain which was significantly worsened in 64% of patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→