MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characteristics and treatment effect of senior patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): A retrospective analysis.

2011· article· en· W2591014697 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Samuel Boudreault, F. Aubin, J. Ayoub, Marie‐Pierre Sylvestre, Carole Richard, Mustapha Tehfé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineComorbidityColorectal cancerProportional hazards modelHazard ratioMedical recordAnemiaMultivariate analysisBleedRetrospective cohort studyCancerSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

600 Background: Colorectal cancer affects many elderly patients as approximately 50% of cases are diagnosed in patients older than 70 years of age. We retrospectively studied characteristics, presentation, treatment and clinical course of our senior patients with (mCRC). Methods: Medical records of all patients ≥70 years with mCRC treated in our institution from 2006-2009 were reviewed. A multivariate Cox's proportional hazards model was applied to estimate the effect of chemotherapy (CT) on survival, while adjusting for other factors measured at time of diagnosis (age, sex, comorbidity, and number of metastases). Results: Ninety-four patients (48 men and 46 women) ≥70 year-old with mCRC were identified. Abdominal pain, fever, lower GI bleed and anemia were the most common presenting symptoms. Fifty-seven patients didn't receive CT mainly because of patient/family refusal, alteration of general status and presence of comorbidity. CT (N=37) was associated with an improved median survival (13.5 months) compared to non-treated group (2 months), with hazard ratio (0.20; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.43; p<0.00001). In the multivariate analysis, age (70-74 vs 75-79 vs ≥80 years), sex, comorbidity (0 vs 1 vs 2 vs ≥3), and number of metastatic sites (1 vs ≥2) were not independently associated with survival. ECOG-PS was not mentioned in the medical record of most patients. Sixty- three percent of the 70-74 year-old patients, 34% of the 75-79 year-old group, and only 23% of the ≥80 year-old patients received CT. Treatment benefit was seen with either 5-FU monotherapy (HR: 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.77), Irinotecan-based (HR: 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.74), or Oxaliplatin-based CT (HR; 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.30). None of the patients had geriatric assessment prior to treatment. Conclusions: Most elderly patients with mCRC do not receive CT, yet treatment was associated with a clear survival benefit. The presence of multiple comorbidities did not affect treatment benefit. Although performance status could not be ascertained in this retrospective study, it likely influenced survival and the decision to treat with CT or not. Oncogeriatric assessment may be useful in better selecting elderly patients for systemic treatment. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207