MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reasons for and outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy choices in elderly patients with resected stage III colon cancer.

2012· article· en· W2589275553 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jenny J. Ko, Hagen F. Kennecke, Howard J. Lim, Sharlene Gill, Ryan Woods, Caroline Speers, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFOLFOXCapecitabineInternal medicineRegimenColorectal cancerCancerOncologyChemotherapyStage (stratigraphy)AdjuvantMultivariate analysisLogistic regressionAdjuvant chemotherapyOxaliplatinSurgeryBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

571 Background: Research suggests that elderly cancer patients are commonly undertreated, but the precise reasons for this are unclear. Robust clinical data on the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for elderly colon cancer patients are also lacking. Our aims were to: 1) evaluate the impact of advanced age on choice of adjuvant chemotherapy (none vs. capecitabine vs. FOLFOX) for curatively resected colon cancer; b) determine the reasons for selecting a particular regimen; and 3) examine whether treatment effect on outcomes is modified by age. Methods: All patients diagnosed with stage III colon cancer between 2006 and 2008, and referred to any 1 of 5 regional cancer centers in British Columbia, Canada were identified. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize treatment patterns among young patients (YPs) aged <70 years vs. elderly patients (EPs) aged >/=70 years. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the association between adjuvant chemotherapy and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in YPs and EPs. Results: In total, 810 patients were identified: 51% were male, 52% YPs and 48% EPs, and 74% received adjuvant chemotherapy. When compared to YPs, EPs had worse ECOG and more comorbidities (both p<0.001). EPs were less likely than YPs to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (57% vs. 91%, p<0.001). Frequent reasons for no treatment included age, comorbidities, and small perceived benefit from adjuvant therapy. Among treated pts, EPs were less likely to receive FOLFOX (32% vs. 74%, p<0.0001) in favor of capecitabine due to patient preference, age, and comorbidities. In multivariate analyses, receipt of either FOLFOX or capecitabine was correlated with improved CSS compared to surgery alone. The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on CSS was not modified by age (interaction p for capecitabine and age = 0.26; interaction p for FOLFOX and age = 0.40). Conclusions: EPs with stage III colon cancer frequently received either no adjuvant treatment or capecitabine monotherapy due to advanced age and co-morbidities. The treatment effect of adjuvant therapy on CSS is similar among EPs and YPs. Adjuvant chemotherapy should not be withheld from colon cancer patients based on advanced age alone.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.388 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207