Trends in chemotherapy (CT) utilization for colorectal cancer: A provincial population-based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
17014 Background: Significant advances have been made in the treatment of colorectal cancer in both the adjuvant and metastatic setting. The purpose of this study is to examine CT prescribing patterns for adjuvant therapy of colon cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer over the last 15 years in British Columbia, Canada. Methods: All patients (pts) with stage 2 or 3 colon cancer, or stage 4 colorectal cancer at presentation referred to the BC Cancer Agency during a one year period for three time cohorts: 1990, 2000 and 2004, were reviewed. A pt was considered to be treated with CT if they received a cycle of CT within 6 months of referral. Results: A total of 1421 pts were included: stage 2/3 n=915, stage 4 n=506. Chemotherapy utilization increased significantly from 1990 to 2004 for adjuvant CT (1990: 49 (29%), 2000: 129 (45%), 2004: 235 (52%), p<0.001) and for palliative CT (1990: 41(35%), 2000: 100 (51%), 2004 120 (63%), p<0.001). The proportion of pts with stage 2 disease treated with adjuvant CT dramatically increased (1990: 3(4%), 2000: 38 (26%), 2004: 50 (30%), p<0.001). CT utilization was associated with a later time cohort and younger age of presentation ( Table 1 ). The use of palliative CT was significantly associated with male gender (p=0.025). This gender bias was not observed in the adjuvant setting. Among pts >70y, only 25% (99/394) received adjuvant CT [1990: 5(8%), 2000:38 (28%), 2004: 57 (28%] and 31% (50/162) received palliative CT [1990:4 (15%), 2000:17 (24%), 2004:30 (45%)]. Conclusions: In this population-based cohort, adjuvant and palliative CT utilization has increased since 1990 however there is room for improvement. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, the use of adjuvant CT for stage II disease has increased significantly. Female pts appear less likely to receive palliative CT. Despite evidence that the elderly can accrue similar proportional benefits, the majority of referred pts >70y did not receive adjuvant or palliative CT. Such discrepancies in CT utilization require further investigation. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".