Screening for New Primary Cancers in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Provincial Analysis of the Choosing Wisely Canada Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Patients with metastatic cancer have a decreased life expectancy, and with screening and surveillance for new primary cancers, they run the risk of immediate harm with little chance of any benefit. Choosing Wisely Canada therefore recommends that such investigations be avoided in patients with metastatic disease. Methods: We examined cancer screening practices in a subset of patients with metastatic cancer in Newfoundland and Labrador. Patients with metastatic breast cancer seen at the provincial cancer clinic during 2014-2016 were identified from the Newfoundland and Labrador Cancer Registry. For each patient, we assessed whether any one or a combination of screening mammography, Pap (Papanicolaou) test, flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, or fecal immunohistochemical test were performed at any point after the diagnosis of metastatic disease. Results: = 107). Primary care providers ordered most of the screening investigations (70%); oncology specialists ordered 14%, and other specialists, 12%. Median overall survival for patients with breast cancer after a diagnosis of metastatic disease was 42 months, with a 5-year overall survival of 35.9%. Conclusions: A significant proportion of patients with metastatic breast cancer in Newfoundland and Labrador are still undergoing screening for new primary malignancies, which is discordant with oncology guidelines from Choosing Wisely Canada. Increased education strategies are needed if the Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations are to be implemented into routine clinical practice.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".