Retrospective cohort study of patients with anal cancer treated over a 12-year period at a large Canadian cancer center.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
606 Background: While optimal management of anal cancer has become better defined in light of recent clinical trials including selected patients, the outcomes in an unselected population are less well defined. We reviewed the outcomes of anal cancer patients in a population referred to a sole-provider regional cancer program at the Ottawa Hospital over a 12 year period (2000 to 2011). Methods: Patient data was collected from hospital records, including demographic, treatment and outcome. Outcomes of interest included overall and recurrence free survival, as well as colostomy free survival. Results: Patients were 72% (n = 130) female and 28% (n = 50) male, 6.6% (n = 12 males) HIV positive, 60% (n = 108) ever smokers, mean age 62 [range 35-90] years. Most frequent presenting symptoms were blood per rectum (87%) and anal pain (80%). Treatment intent was curative in 87%. Treatment included radiotherapy (94%), brachytherapy (26%), chemotherapy (73%). Combined chemoradiotherapy was received by 71%, including MMC-5FU (n = 87) and cisplatin+5FU (n = 41). Among patients treated with curative-intent, 72% had a complete response, 31% local/regional recurrence, 16% required salvage surgery and 21% had distant recurrence. Colostomy rate was 23%. 5 year overall survival (OS) was not significantly different for patients by HIV status; 52 vs. 60% for HIV positive vs negative, respectively, HR 1.36, p = 0.47. Survival was superior if MMC+5FU was used first vs. Cisplatin+5FU; 5yOS 73 vs 46% respectively, [HR 0.45 (95%CI 0.25 – 0.83), log rank p = 0.013]. Conclusions: The outcomes of patients in this large retrospective cohort study are similar to the outcomes of patients in highly selective clinical trials. Five year overall survival and colostomy free survival are encouraging. MMC +5FU was found to be superior to Cisplatin +5FU. Further study is required to improve outcomes for patients with metastatic disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".