Patient-reported experience of diagnosis, management, and burden of renal cell carcinomas: Results from a global patient survey in forty-three countries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e16091 Background: The International Kidney Cancer Coalition (IKCC) is a federation of 38 affiliated patient organizations representing 1.2 million patients worldwide that is committed to reduce the global burden of kidney cancer. A large-scale global survey of RCC patients to capture real world experiences (RWE) has never been undertaken. Methods: The 35-question survey was designed to identify geographic variations in patient education, experience and awareness, access to care, best practices, quality of life, involvement in clinical trials and to highlight unmet needs. The survey was conducted online or in paper form in Sept-Oct 2018 by kidney cancer patients and /or their caregivers identified by IKCC’s Affiliate Organizations and through social media in 14 languages. Results: 1,983 responses were recorded from 43 countries. Analysis revealed that at diagnosis, 43% of all respondents had no understanding of their RCC sub-type; patients with clear cell carcinoma (64%) had a notably poorer understanding of their RCC subtype than did patients with rarer RCC subtypes. While 96% of respondents reported psychosocial impacts, surprisingly, only 50% disclosed them to their healthcare team. Of the 70% of patients who were never asked to participate in a clinical trial, 89% responded they would have “fairly likely” done so if asked. RCC patients < 45 years old reported nearly twice as many barriers to treatment as patients > 45 at diagnosis. Females reported longer delays to diagnosis than males. Shared decision making remains aspirational across major cancer centers and community hospitals: globally 29% of all patients reported no involvement in their treatment decision, responding ‘my doctor decided for me’. Conclusions: This exploratory research sheds light on the unmet needs in the RCC patient experience and warrants further analysis. This first-ever global survey serves as a benchmark for longitudinal data collection. RWE indicates opportunities to improve communication about diagnosis, psychosocial impacts, and clinical trials. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".