Outcomes for patients ≥75 years with localized gastroesophageal cancer: Experience from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10037 Background: The optimal treatment and outcome for elderly patients (pts) with localized gastroesophageal (GE) cancer remains unclear as they are underrepresented in clinical trials. We aimed to assess survival in pts ≥75 years according to treatment received. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed for all pts aged ≥75 years with GE cancer treated in 2012-2014. Frailty was measured using the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and ECOG performance status (PS). Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed via uni- and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for demographics. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine factors impacting treatment choices. Results: Of 105 pts, median age was 81 years (range: 75-99), primary sites were esophageal (55%, with 43% squamous histology) and gastric (45%). Baseline characteristics included: PS: 0 (31%), 1 (42%), 2 (16%), 3 (10%), 4 (1%); and CCI: 0 (34%), 1 (25%), 2 (19%), ≥3 (22%). Treatment received included radiotherapy alone (RT) (31%); surgery alone (29%); surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy (chemo) and/or RT (14%); chemoradiation alone (7%) and supportive care (18%). In univariable analyses; age < 85 (p = 0.003), PS < 2 (p = 0.03) and surgery (p < 0.001) were associated with improved OS. Chemo and RT, either alone or in combination, did not significantly improve OS. In multivariable analyses; surgery (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.70, p = 0.002) was the only independent predictor for improved OS. Patients with good PS (p = 0.01), gastric disease site (p = 0.01) and adenocarcinoma histology (p = 0.02) were more likely to undergo surgery. Conclusions: At our institution, relatively few pts ≥75 years received multimodality therapy for localized GE cancers. Those pts ≥75 years who underwent surgery had excellent outcomes, but they were well-selected. Comprehensive assessment should be considered for pts ≥75 years with localized GE cancer to ensure optimal treatment selection, particularly given the potential benefit of surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".