MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surveillance for asymptomatic recurrence in resected stage III colon cancer (CC): Does it result in a more favorable outcome?

2014· article· en· W2908065842 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Smoragiewicz, Howard J. Lim, Renata D’Alpino Peixoto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOxaliplatinCapecitabineStage (stratigraphy)AsymptomaticInternal medicineColorectal cancerSurgeryLog-rank testCancerChemotherapyGastroenterologyProportional hazards model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3612 Background: Evidence supports a modest survival benefit for intensive post-treatment surveillance following potentially curative resection of CC. However, no studies so far included only patients with stage III CC, who have the highest risk of recurrence. Methods: Medical records of patients who initiated adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) with either 5-FU or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for stage III CC between 2007 and 2011 at the BC Cancer Agency were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier and log rank test were generated to investigate whether diagnosis of recurrence based on symptoms was associated with worse OS. OS1 was considered from date of recurrence to date of death or last FU. OS2 was considered time from surgery (sg) to date of death or last follow-up (FU). Results: Of635 pts who received oxaliplatin-based AC for stage III colon cancer, 176 patients (27.7%) have recurred and 118 (18.6%) have died at a median FU of 57.9 months. Recurrence was detected based on CEA elevation (G1) in 72 (41.1%) pts, abnormal imaging (G1) in 77 (44%) and symptoms (G2) in 26 (14.9%). Median time from sg to recurrence was shorter in G1 as compared to G2 (18.5 vs 25.7 months, p=0.003, HR 0.501). Median OS1 was significantly prolonged in G1 as compared to G2 (26.7 vs 6.5 months, p<0.001, HR 0.393). However, median OS2 was not statistically different between G1 and G2 (49.8 vs 40.1, p=0.327, HR 0.776). Patients with surveillance detected recurrence underwent significantly more potentially curative metastasectomy than patients with recurrence detected due to symptoms (33% vs 8%, p= 0.014). Conclusions: In our population-based study, patients who were symptomatic at the time of recurrence were diagnosed later than those detected by abnormal CEA or imaging and had shorter OS1. However, OS2 was similar in both groups adjusting for the effect of lead time bias. Surveillance for asymptomatic recurrence may still provide an opportunity for curative metastasectomy but the overall survival impact is unclear.

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)0.004
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.377 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207