Time to first-line chemotherapy and travel distance to the cancer center and their relationship to subsequent-line therapies in stage IV CRC.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
724 Background: Second and third line therapies in stage IV colorectal (CRC) have been associated with significant improvement in survival. However, not all patients receive all available therapies. Delay in starting treatment and travel burden can affect patient access and use of future therapy. Little is known about time to first line chemotherapy (TC) and travel distance to cancer center (TD) and their relationship to future therapies in stage IV CRC. The study aims to determine relationship between TC and TD with second and subsequent line of therapies. Methods: A patients cohort diagnosed with synchronous stage IV CRC during 2006-2010 in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada was studied. Patients with ECOG performance status of > 1 or who did not receive chemotherapy were excluded. The logistic regression analyses were performed to assess relationship between TC and TD and subsequent line therapies. Results: 569 patients were diagnosed with synchronous stage IV CRC. 326 patients received first line chemotherapy (mostly FOLFIRI ± bevacizumab). Of 326 patients 62 with ECOG performance status (PS) > 1 were excluded. The median age of 264 eligible patients was 62 yrs (IQR:53-72). 61% were male and 38% had ECOG PS of 0. Mean Charlson score was 9±1.3. 24% underwent metastasectomy. Median TC was 77 days (IQR: 53-107) and median TD was 64.4 km (IQR:4.8-166). 42.8% patients had to travel > 100 km for their treatment. Of 326 patients 144 (55%) received future therapies. On multivariate analysis absence of comorbid illness (as per Charlson comorbid index), odd ratio (OR) 1.45 (95% CI: 1.19-1.77), no metastasectomy, OR 1.89 (1.03-3.46) and TD < 100 km, OR 1.69 (1.003-2.84) were correlated with the utility of 2ndand subsequent line therapies. Conclusions: Our result revealed that although time to first line chemotherapy did not correlate with future systemic therapies, travel distance to Cancer Center > 100 km was associated with low rate of second or subsequent line therapies in statge IV CRC patients with good performance status.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".