MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of a geriatric oncology (GO) clinic on cancer treatment plans and supportive care for older adults with genitourinary (GU) cancer.

2018· article· en· W2791245831 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, Allison Loucks, Rana Jin, Martine Puts, Sarah Watt, Arielle Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeriatric oncologyPolypharmacyCancerGeriatricsGenitourinary systemProstate cancerRadiation therapyInternal medicineMalignancyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

238 Background: Older adults with cancer are complex due to multiple comorbidities, polypharmacy, and functional/cognitive impairments, leading to over-treatment and undertreatment. Studies examining the impact of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with various cancers found a median of 39% of treatment plans were revised after the GA ( Ann Oncol 2014; 25:307). Although these findings support the need for a GO clinic, whether such a clinic leads to changes in treatment in patients with GU malignancies is not clear. We examined the impact on the treatment plan of a GO assessment in GU patients, along with other enhancements to patient care for consecutive patients referred to the GO clinic in a tertiary care hospital. Methods: All referred older adults (age 65+) with a GU malignancy seen in the GO clinic at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada between July 2015 and June 2017 were included. Patients were seen by a geriatric oncologist and GO nurse and treatment recommendations were provided to the referring oncologist. Pre- and post-GO clinic treatment plans and enhancements to supportive care were recorded prospectively. Analyses were descriptive. Results: 98 patients (mean age 80) were seen in the GO clinic, of whom 35 were seen pre-treatment (25 prostate, 5 kidney, 5 bladder). 31 of 35 were referred for input on the treatment plan. The initial treatment plan included surgery (n = 6), radiation (n = 14), systemic therapy (n = 8), and hormonal therapy (n = 11). The final treatment plan was intensified in 1 patient, reduced in 6 patients, changed to best supportive care in 8 patients, and unchanged in 15 patients. Overall, GO resulted in a treatment modification in 52% of patients. Enhancements to care included comorbidity management (87%), educational support (94%), disease-related symptoms (39%), and peri-operative management (19%). Conclusions: The GO clinic results in modifications to the proposed treatment plan in over half of referred patients (predominantly a reduction in treatment intensity), and enhancements to care in the vast majority of patients. GO clinics have the potential to avoid overtreatment and improve care for older adults with GU malignancies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.421 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→