A qualitative study of patient and clinician attitudes regarding surveillance following resection of pancreatic and periampullary cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
339 Background: Pancreatic carcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in North America. Following surgical resection, most patients will develop recurrence within two years. Intense follow-up is often recommended; however, the impact on survival is unknown. We sought to qualitatively assess patient and clinician attitudes towards follow-up and the perceived benefits and challenges. Methods: The research team developed a semi-structured interview guide. Purposive sampling identified patients who had undergone curative attempt resection and were in active surveillance or had developed recurrence. Clinicians involved in patient care were also interviewed.Themes were derived using standard qualitative methods. Results: Fifteen patients and seven clinicians were interviewed. Patient themes included (1) Limited understanding of disease prognosis; (2) Desire for reassurance through follow-up; (3) Desire to know if and when recurrence occurred; (4) Challenging treatments; (5) Minimal difficulties with the follow-up protocol; and (6) Limited role of family doctors in pancreatic cancer follow-up. Clinician themes included (1) Expectation that patients are aware of recurrence risk; (2) Desire to provide reassurance to patients; (3) Support for intense follow-up protocol despite lack of supporting evidence; (4) Secondary goals for surveillance; (5) Perceived patient challenges in follow-up; (6) Openness to family doctors doing follow-up. Overall, the dominant theme was one of disconnect between patients and clinicians in the understanding of the disease and its prognosis. Conclusions: Patients with pancreatic or periampullary cancer have an intense need for reassurance and obtain this through the follow-up process. Consequently they express few difficulties with follow-up despite the intensity of testing. Oncologists recognize this desire for reassurance and provide it through follow-up despite the lack of evidence to show benefit. There appears to be a disconnect between patients and clinicians in the understanding of the disease and its prognosis suggesting further work is needed to improve patient-physician communication.
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 | 0.027 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".