Population-based analysis of patients with advanced colorectal cancer: The impact of age on treatment and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3614 Background: 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy provides a significant survival benefit in older and younger patients with advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC). Recently, there have been a number of emerging therapies for metastatic CRC that have demonstrated efficacy. We conducted a population-based analysis to examine trends in systemic agent utilization and outcomes in older and younger cohorts. Methods: Patients with ACRC at presentation diagnosed in 2000 and 2002 were identified from the British Columbia Cancer Agency Registry. Information regarding baseline characteristics, treatment and outcomes was recorded. Patients were divided into two age cohorts: <70y (Group A, n= 261) and >=70y (Group B, n= 188). Survival was analyzed according to Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: Patients in Group A were more likely to receive systemic therapy (70% vs 43%, p<0.001). Characteristics of treated versus untreated: Group A - male 62%/51%, median age 58/63, liver-limited metastases 74%/67%, PS>=2 29%/60%/Group B - male 65%/52%, median age 74/78, liver-limited metastases 74%/64%, PS>=2 33%/64%. First-line therapy with 5FU/capecitabine monotherapy or doublet therapy respectively was 33% and 61% in Group A and 69% and 26% in Group B. Median survival in Group A was 13.9 m versus 9.6m in Group B (p<0.0001). Survival for patients treated with monotherapy: Group A - 17.3 m, Group B - 10.8 m (p=0.0162). Survival for patients treated with doublet therapy: Group A - 17.5 m, Group B - 16.3 m (p=0.6418). Conclusions: Younger patients are more likely to receive palliative chemotherapy. At presentation, baseline characteristics of gender, extent of metastases and PS are similar between treated older and younger patients with ACRC. However, younger patients are more likely to receive doublet therapy. Among patients treated with doublet therapy, older patients achieved a similar magnitude of survival benefit when compared to their younger counterparts This work has been supported by a grant-in-aid by Hoffman LaRoche. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Role Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration AstraZeneca
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".