Adherence to guidelines for baseline staging in newly diagnosed localized breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Different health agencies in Canada including Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) have developed guidelines for the baseline staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients but adherence to them is unknown. We sought to investigate adherence to CCO staging guidelines in a single cancer center in addition to the factors that influence this adherence. METHOD: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 212 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients between 2015 and 2017. Baseline patient demographic and disease characteristics as well as radiologic staging studies and subsequent treatments were recorded. The group of patients in whom the guidelines were observed was compared to the group of patients in whom the guidelines were not followed. RESULTS: Staging guidelines were not followed in 46.7% of the patients in the cohort (99 of 212 patients). In most cases, deviations from the guidelines consisted of performing more than the recommended baseline screening, most commonly in the form of a computerized tomography (CT) scan or a bone scan and chest x-ray (CXR)/ ultrasound (US) of the liver. Less commonly, a recommended staging evaluation was omitted or the suggested timing of the staging procedure (i.e., pre-operatively versus post-operatively) was not followed. Higher stage and grade of the disease and subsequent chemotherapy administration were associated with higher guideline non-adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Low adherence to staging guidelines for newly diagnosed breast cancer according to CCO is shown in a community cancer center. Incorporation of arising prognostic factors to staging procedure determination may increase acceptance and adherence to guidelines in the future.
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 | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".