Impact of Tumor Deposits on Oncologic Outcomes in Stage III Colon Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognosis of tumor deposits in stage III colon adenocarcinoma is poorly described. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of tumor deposits on oncologic outcomes in patients with stage III colon cancer. DESIGN: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The 2010 to 2014 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with resected stage III colon adenocarcinoma on final pathology. PATIENTS: Patients were divided into 3 groups: lymph nodes+tumor deposits-, lymph nodes+tumor deposits+, and lymph nodes-tumor deposits+. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was 5-year overall survival. RESULTS: Of 74,577 patients, there were 55,800 patients with lymph nodes+tumor deposits-, 13,740 patients with lymph nodes+tumor deposits+, and 5037 patients with lymph nodes-tumor deposits+. The groups had similar patient and facility characteristics, but patients with lymph nodes+tumor deposits+ had more advanced tumor characteristics. Patients with lymph nodes-tumor deposits+ were less likely to receive adjuvant systemic therapy (52% vs 74% lymph nodes+tumor deposits- and 75% lymph nodes+tumor deposits+, p < 0.001) and had a longer delay to initiation of adjuvant treatment (>8 weeks; 43% vs 33% lymph nodes+tumor deposits- and 33% lymph nodes+tumor deposits+, p < 0.001). Patients with lymph nodes+tumor deposits+ had the lowest 5-year overall survival (46.0% vs 63.4% lymph nodes+tumor deposits- vs 61.9% lymph nodes-tumor deposits+, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, patients with lymph nodes-tumor deposits+ had similar 5-year overall survival compared with patients with lymph nodes+tumor deposits- with ≤3 positive lymph nodes (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.01). Patients with lymph nodes+tumor deposits+ had worse prognosis regardless of the number of involved lymph nodes (≤3 +lymph nodes: HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.28-1.47 and ≥4 +lymph nodes: HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.22-1.38). Of those not receiving adjuvant treatment, patients with lymph nodes-tumor deposits+ were younger and had more adverse tumor features than lymph node+ disease. Lymph nodes-tumor deposits+ was independently associated with less delivery of adjuvant systemic therapy (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.80-0.82). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective analysis of a prospective database. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of patients with N1c disease is similar to nodal involvement without tumor deposits, yet these patients were less likely to receive adjuvant systemic therapy. Improvement in the delivery of appropriate care in these patients may increase survival and should be a target of future quality initiatives. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A666.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".