MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4230464477 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.112

Cancer Care Ontario Guidelines for radical prostatectomy: Striving for continuous quality improvement in community practice

2012· article· en· W4230464477 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Todd M. Webster, Christopher Newell, John F. Amrhein

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsCampbell Scientific (Canada)South Bruce Grey Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyGuidelinePerioperativeProstate cancerCancerBlood transfusionGeneral surgerySurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Cancer Care Ontario has published an evidence-based guideline on their website “Guideline for Optimization of Surgicaland Pathological Quality Performance for Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer Management: Surgical and Pathological Guidelines.” The evidentiary base for this guideline was recently published in CUAJ. The CCO guideline proposes the following: a positive surgical margin (PSM) rate of <25% for organ-confined disease (pT2), a perioperative mortality of <1%, a rate of rectal injury <1%, and a blood transfusion rate <10% in non-anemic patients. The objective of this study was to review the radical prostatectomy practice at the Grey Bruce Health Services, an Ontario community hospital, and to compare our performance in relation to the Cancer Care Ontario guideline and the literature.Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all radical prostatectomies performed at the Grey Bruce Health Services from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007. The following data were obtained from clinical records and pathology reports: patient age, pre-biopsy prostate-specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score, resected prostate gland weight, radical prostatectomy Gleason score, surgical margin status, pathological tumour stage (pT), lymph node dissection status, perioperative incidence of transfusion of blood products and if the patient was anemic (hemoglobin <140 g/L) preoperatively, incidence of rectal injury, and perioperative mortality within 30 days following surgery.Results: Using the method proposed by D’Amico, most patients undergoing radical prostatectomy were intermediate risk (62%), with a minority of low-risk (24%) and high-risk (14%) patients. The overall PSM rate was 37%. The rate of PSMs in organ-confined disease (pT2) was 26%. There was a statistically significant trend between increasing D’Amico risk category and increasing rate of PSM (Cochran-Armitage trend test, p = 0.023). There was a strong correlation between the pathological tumour stage and the rate of PSM (Cochran-Armitage trend test, p = 0.0003). The rate of blood transfusion in non-anemic patients was 6%. There was 1 patient (0.8%) who experienced a rectal injury. There were no perioperative deaths in our study group.Conclusion: Our results show that a community hospital group can appropriately select patients to undergo radical prostatectomy, as well as achieve an acceptable rate of PSMs. We believe that ongoing critical appraisal and reflective practice are essential to improving surgical outcomes and providing quality care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.244
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→