Adherence to surveillance guidelines following curative resection for stage II and III colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4051 Background: The risk of disease recurrence in stage II and III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients (pts) following curative resection underscores the need for post-operative surveillance. However, there is continual controversy as to whether an intensive or conservative strategy is more appropriate. Our aims were to determine adherence in the ‘real world‘ to ASCO guidelines on CRC surveillance and to evaluate differences in practice patterns and outcomes between an academic instituation, Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH), and a community cancer center, Credit Valley Hospital (CVH). Methods: Stage II and III CRC pts diagnosed between 1999 and 2001 were identified from hospital cancer registries. Surveillance practices and outcomes in the first 5 years of follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Results: A total of 244 and 97 pts were identified at PMH and CVH, respectively: 80 stage II and 119 stage III colon cancers (CC), and 66 stage II and 76 stage III rectal cancers (RC). Median age at diagnosis was 61.8 years. Surveillance patterns over a 5-year period, adherence to ASCO guidelines and comparisons between hospitals were tabulated (see table ). There were a total of 70 CRC recurrences: 53/244 (22%) at PMH and 17/97 (18%) at CVH. Among them, 53 (76%) were detected by surveillance (44 PMH, 9 CVH) and 17 (24%) by symptoms (9 PMH, 8 CVH). For recurrences detected by surveillance, 20/53 (38%) were resectable, whereas only 3/17 (18%) of those detected by symptoms were resectable. Of the 20 resectable recurrences detected by surveillance, 40% were CC and 60% were RC; CT scan was the method of detection in 55% of cases, and sites of recurrence included liver (7), lung (6), local (5), and nodes (2). Conclusions: CRC surveillance revealed significant departures from ASCO guidelines with a large academic institution employing a more intensive surveillance strategy with imaging than a community cancer center. Surveillance was associated with a higher proportion of resectable tumor recurrences than detection by symptoms. [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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".