A systematic review of the impact of comorbidity on chemotherapy utilization and outcomes in solid tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e20646 Background: The management of cancer patients (pts) with comorbidities can be challenging as these individuals are underrepresented in oncology clinical trials. We conducted a systematic literature review to determine the impact of comorbidity on utilization, tolerability, and efficacy of chemotherapy among pts with solid tumors. Methods: Using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, all English-language articles published from 1990–2008 that explored the association between comorbidity and chemotherapy were identified. MeSH and keyword search terms included “comorbidity,” “chemotherapy” and “cancer.” All abstracts were manually reviewed for eligibility based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently abstracted data on the design and results of each eligible study, and rated the quality of the article using the STROBE checklist. Results: Of 1,031 citations retrieved by the search, 29 articles met inclusion criteria. Study designs were too heterogeneous to permit a quantitative summary and the overall quality of articles was poor. Comorbidity was investigated most frequently among pts with lung (41%), breast (17%), or colon cancers (17%). Most studies were retrospective (72%), based on cancer registry data (48%), and assessed the effect of cumulative comorbidity based on an index score (76%). Fourteen studies (41%) investigated access and 26 (90%) addressed survival. For pts with comorbidities, the majority reported decreased access (50%) and inferior survival (65%). Of the 12 articles that included both parameters, 6 showed that comorbidity was independently associated with worse survival while 4 demonstrated that impaired access to treatment, not comorbidity, was the stronger predictor of inferior outcomes. Few studies addressed toxicity (24%), ability to complete chemotherapy (7%) or response rates (7%). Among them, no differences based on comorbidity were noted. Conclusions: The evidence regarding the impact of comorbidity on chemotherapy utilization and outcomes among cancer pts is limited and of poor quality. Further better-designed studies are warranted to determine the relationship between decreased access and inferior outcomes and to better define the tolerability and efficacy of chemotherapy in pts with comorbidities. 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".