Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Cancer-Related Mortality in Familial Colorectal Cancer Type X and Lynch Syndrome Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of cancers is well characterized in Lynch syndrome (LS) families but has been less studied in familial colorectal cancer type X (FCCTX) families. METHODS: In this article, we compare the risk estimates of first and second colorectal cancers (CRCs) in 168 FCTTX and 780 LS families recruited through the Colon Cancer Family Registry as well as the risk of cancer-related deaths and disease-free survival (DFS) after a first CRC. Our methodology is based on a survival analysis approach, developed specifically to model the occurrence of successive cancers (ie, first and second CRCs) in the presence of competing risk events (ie, death from any causes). RESULTS: We found an excess risk of first and second CRC in individuals with LS compared to FCCTX family members. However, for an average age at first CRC of 60 years in FCCTX families and 50 years in LS families, the DFS rates were comparable in men but lower in women from FCCTX vs LS families, eg , 75.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 69.0% to 80.9%) vs 78.9% (95% CI = 76.3% to 81.3%) for the 10-year DFS. The 10-year risk of cancer-related death was higher in FCCTX families vs LS families, eg, 15.4% in men (95% CI = 10.9% to 19.8%) and 19.3% in women (95% CI = 13.6% to 24.7%) vs 8.9% (95% CI = 7.5% to 11.4%) and 8.7% (95% CI = 7.1% to 10.8%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with CRCs arising in the context of FCCTX do not experience the same improved DFS and overall survival of those with LS, and that difference may be relevant in management decisions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".