MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Role of trimodality therapy versus dual-modality in T3N0 rectal cancer patients.

2011· article· en· W2589683484 on OpenAlexaff
Howard J. Lim, Ryan Woods, B. S. Johal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTotal mesorectal excisionColorectal cancerCohortCancerChemotherapySurgeryPopulationUnivariate analysisRadiation therapyMultivariate analysisOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

597 Background: Adjuvant radiation (R) and chemotherapy (C) is generally recommended for patients (pts) with pT3N0 rectal cancer, although there is no data to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. This study examines the whether there is benefit with trimodality therapy vs. dual modality in this population. Methods: The BCCA Colorectal Cancer Outcomes Unit database was used to identify referred pts with pT3N0 rectal carcinoma diagnosed between 2000-2004. The data from this cohort has been previously reported (Johal et al. ASCO Annual Meeting 2007) During this period, “short course” R (25Gy/5, surgery within 10 days) was recommended for resectable cT3 tumors followed by 6 months of C. If not treated pre-operatively (pre-op), guidelines specified post-op “long course” (45Gy/25) R and C. Three treatment groups were identified: Surgery alone (S), S and R (SR), and S, R and C (SRC). Eligible pts had complete surgical resection with or without total mesorectal Excision (TME). Pts treated with “downstaging” pre-op long course R, with S and C only (13 pts) or with R2 resection were excluded. Locoregional Recurrence (LR) and Distant Recurrence (DR) rates determined. Reasons for non-treatment were determined by chart review. Due to the heterogeneity between the groups, a univariate and multivariate analysis was performed. Results: The patient characteristics have been previously reported. 5-yr LR was similar between SR and SRC (3.84 %vs. 6.34% p=0.474). 5-yr DR were 24.81% (SR), and 17.56% (SRC) p=0.0354 and 5 yr OS 68.4% (SR), and 86% (SRC) p=.0002. On multivariate analysis, chemotherapy did impact on OS with a HR of 0.532, p=0.0462. Conclusions: Treatment of pT3N0 rectal cancer was variable in clinical practice despite established guidelines. There was significant heterogeneity with respect to comorbid medical conditions between groups receiving SR and SRC which limits comparability between groups. However, those patients who received tri-modality therapy experienced less distant relapse and an increase in overall survival. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments→French-language works237,207→