MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preoperative triage and multidisciplinary consultation for patients with breast cancer: A pilot study between surgery and medical oncology.

2016· article· en· W2589758764 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Adilman, Christine Simmons, Maryam Eslami, Caroline Illmann, Rebecca Warburton, Elaine McKevitt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of WaterlooBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTriageBreast cancerReferralRadiation oncologistMultidisciplinary approachCancerGeneral surgeryMedical emergencySurgeryFamily medicineRadiation therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

208 Background: Breast cancer management has become exceedingly collaborative across specialties. Preoperative multidisciplinary input in particular is increasingly needed as indications for neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) continue to expand. In British Columbia, as in many other regions, breast cancer surgery is typically performed by community surgeons working in settings away from medical and radiation oncologists, making preoperative multidisciplinary input challenging. Methods: This prospective pilot study was designed to enhance and streamline preoperative breast cancer care at the BC Cancer Agency Vancouver Centre (BCCA) and Mount Saint Joseph’s Hospital (MSJ). Patients with a new diagnosis of breast cancer at the MSJ Breast Clinic are included in this pilot triage project if tumors meet one or more of the following criteria: triple negative, HER2+, clinically palpable ≥ 2cm, or present with positive/palpable nodes. Before the patient has consulted with a surgeon, the pathology, imaging, and GP’s assessment is faxed by a MSJ nurse navigator to BCCA for preoperative triage by a medical oncologist. A BCCA navigator facilitates this confidential electronic triage process, and communicates the medical oncologist’s recommendation [a) urgent referral for NAT, or b) upfront surgery] back to MSJ for appropriate booking and management. Results: Since inception in November 2014, 42 patients have undergone electronic preoperative triage through this pilot project. Of those, 47.6% were recommended to have, and did have, a preoperative medical oncology consult to discuss NAT. 90% of patients who had a NAT consult ultimately received NAT compared to a 66% uptake of NAT through the traditional referral process (P = 0.029). Median wait time from ‘biopsy result’ to ‘start of chemotherapy’ was significantly reduced by 9 days through this novel triage process (P = 0.047). Conclusions: This preoperative multidisciplinary triage project has significantly reduced treatment wait times and improved patient selection for and uptake of NAT for breast cancer. Breast cancer care benefits from increased preoperative navigation to help streamline and expedite care for high-risk 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.361
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207