MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Natural history and outcomes of synchronous and metachronous colorectal cancers (CRC): A population-based analysis.

2013· article· en· W2728580199 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jackson Chu, Özge Göktepe, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerInternal medicineRectumProportional hazards modelOncologyNatural historyCancerPopulationChemotherapyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3593 Background: Early data suggest that synchronous and metachronous CRC portend a worse prognosis when compared to solitary CRC. Our aims were to 1) characterize the clinical features and treatment patterns of synchronous and metachronous CRC and 2) compare their survival outcomes with those of solitary CRC. Methods: All patients diagnosed with non-metastatic CRC between 1999 and 2008 and referred to any 1 of 5 regional cancer centers in British Columbia, Canada were reviewed. Synchronous and metachronous CRC were defined as multiple (2 or more) distinct tumors that were diagnosed within and beyond 6 months of the date of index CRC diagnosis, respectively, during the study period. Patients with liver metastases at initial diagnosis were excluded. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to estimate survival among the different CRC groups. Results: A total of 6360 patients were identified: 6147 (96%) solitary, 178 (3%) synchronous and 35 (1%) metachronous tumors; median age was 68 years (IQR 59-76); 57% were men; and 75% were ECOG 0/1 at the time of index cancer diagnosis. Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable across patients (all p>0.05). Compared with solitary CRC, synchronous and metachronous CRC more commonly affected the colon rather than the rectum (84 vs 85 vs 59%, respectively, p<0.001), but presenting symptoms, treatment approaches, and use of chemotherapy, radiation and surgery were similar among the different tumor groups (all p>0.05). In terms of survival, no differences were observed in 3-year relapse free survival (66 vs 66 vs 56%, p=0.20), 5-year cancer specific survival (69 vs 69 vs 53%, p=0.34) and 5-year overall survival (62 vs 59 vs 49%, p=0.74) for solitary, synchronous and metachronous CRC, respectively. These findings persisted after controlling for known prognostic factors, such as age and ECOG. Conclusions: In this large population-based cohort, there were no differences in survival outcomes among solitary, synchronous and metachronous CRC. Patients who present with multiple tumors in the colon or the rectum should be managed similarly to those who present with an isolated tumor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207