The impact of multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCC) on the treatment of metastatic rectal cancer (MRC) at the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre (TOHCC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e14686 Background: There is significant controversy surrounding the management of surgically resectable MRC. The use and timing of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pelvic radiation, and relative risks and benefits of a combined surgical resection are areas of debate among surgeons, medical, and radiation oncologists. The TOHCC multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences (MCC) provide an opportunity to discuss these cases and propose treatment plans for these patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all the cases of MRC which were discussed at MCC at the TOHCC from November 2007 until October 2009. Information collected included patient demographics, site of metastases, the treatment they received prior to their case being discussed at MCC (past surgeries, chemotherapy, radiotherapy), the treatment plan discussed at MCC, treatment actually administered post MCC discussion, and patient outcome at 6 months. Results: Forty-two patients with MRC were reviewed. The most common sites of metastases were liver (45.2%) and lung (31%). Once diagnosed with metastatic disease, prior to the MCC, patients had received the following treatments alone or in combination: chemotherapy (33.3%), radiotherapy (21.4%), surgery (19.0%), no treatment (n=57.1%). After their case was presented, 38 patients (90.5%) received the treatment recommended at the MCC , while 4 (9.5%) did not. Treatment post MCC included: chemotherapy (neoadjuvant: 38.1%; adjuvant: 23.8%; palliative: 28.6%), radiotherapy (neoadjuvant: 14.3%; adjuvant: 7.1%; palliative: 7.1%) and surgery (31.0%). Conclusions: There is no standardized approach to the management of MRC. Given its complexity, many cases are reviewed at MCC, which allow coordination for multidisciplinary care of these patients. The results of this study suggest that in a majority of cases, the recommendations brought forth at MCC are indeed acted upon. Given that these meetings have a significant impact on the treatment plan and outcome of patients with MRC, they should represent the standard of care when treating this disease.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".