MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of duration of neoadjuvant radiation on rectal cancer survival.

2015· article· en· W2590066918 on OpenAlexaff
Aalok Kumar, Renata D’Alpino Peixoto, Hagen F. Kennecke, Caroline Speers, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal and Anal Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerInternal medicineProportional hazards modelCohortConfoundingRadiation therapyGastroenterologyStage (stratigraphy)OncologyPopulationSurvival analysisLogistic regressionCancerSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

682 Background: The utility of neoadjuvant radiation (XRT) for the treatment of stages II-III rectal cancer has been demonstrated previously. However, the optimal amount and duration XRT in this setting remains unknown. Using a population-based cohort of stage II and II rectal cancer (RC) patients treated with curative intent including XRT, our aims were to 1) examine the patterns in XRT use and 2) explore the relationship between XRT course and survival. Methods: We analyzed patients diagnosed with clinical stage II-III RC from 2006 to 2010 and treated with long course 45-50.4 Gray (LC) or short course 25 Gray (SC) XRT at any 1 of 5 regional cancer centers in British Columbia. Logistic regression models were constructed to determine the factors associated with the course of XRT given, LC vs. SC. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression that accounted for known prognostic factors were used to evaluate the relationship between XRT course and disease-free (DFS), overall survival (OS), local recurrence free survival (LRFS) and distant recurrence free survival (DRFS). Results: 427 patients were identified: median age 65 years (range 31 to 94), 67% men, 87% T3/4 tumors, and 74% with N1 or N2 disease. Among them, 240 (56%) received SC and 187 (44%) received LC. Adjusting for confounders, patients with N1 or N2 disease were more likely to receive LC (OR for LC 5.08, 95% CI, 2.51-11.22, p<0.0001 and 8.35, 95% CI, 3.35-22.39, p<0.0001, respectively), while older age patients were less likely to receive LC (OR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.94-0.98, p<0.0001). On univariate analysis, there was no significant difference seen in DFS, OS, LRFS, and DRFS between LC and SC. Similarly, in multivariate analyses comparing LC vs. SC, the course of XRT was not associated with differences in DFS (HR 1.06, 95% CI, 0.68-1.64, p=0.80), OS (HR 0.91, 95% CI, 0.61-1.37, p=0.66), LRFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.39-1.57, p=0.50) and DRFS (HR 0.99, 95% CI, 0.60-1.61, p=0.95). Additional baseline clinical and tumor characteristics did not influence outcomes (all p>0.05). Conclusions: Appropriate pre-operative selection of SC vs. LC neoadjuvant XRT for early stage RC based on patient and tumor characteristics was not associated with differences in survival outcomes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, 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 OncologySame topicColorectal and Anal CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207