MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cancer screening in adult survivors of childhood cancer: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS)

2009· article· en· W4256558969 on OpenAlexaff
Paul C. Nathan, Kirsten K. Ness, Melissa M. Hudson, Mary T Mahoney, Jennifer S. Ford, Wendy Landier, Georgina Armstrong, Tara O. Henderson, L. L. Robison, Kevin C. Oeffinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyCancerPopulationBreast cancerOdds ratioConfidence intervalMammographyColorectal cancerCancer registryCohortCancer screeningInternal medicineObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CRA6501 Background: Childhood cancer survivors may develop a second malignant neoplasm (SMN) and require surveillance to detect new cancers. Methods: We surveyed survivors and siblings from the CCSS, a cohort study of patients who have survived ≥5 years after a diagnosis of childhood cancer from 1970–86. We assessed compliance with the American Cancer Society's (ACS) guidelines for surveillance mammography, colonoscopy and PAP smears, and compared them to a matched population comparison group drawn from the 2003 National Health Interview Survey. Further, we examined compliance with the Children's Oncology Group (COG) guidelines for more frequent colonoscopy, mammography and skin exams in survivors at high risk for cancers of the colon (≥30 Gy pelvic, abdominal or spinal radiation), breast (≥ 20 Gy breast radiation in females) or skin (any radiation). Proportions screened were compared between groups with adjusted generalized estimating equations or log-binomial regression models. Results: There were 8318 survivors (50.6% male, mean age at interview 31.2 ± 7.3 years), 2661 siblings and 8318 population controls. 141/829 (17.6%), 592/855 (70.4%) and 3362/3690 (92.6%) eligible survivors reported a colonoscopy, mammogram, or PAP smear per ACS guidelines. Survivors were less likely than siblings (odds ratio [OR] 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18–0.49) and population controls (OR 0.63; CI 0.50–0.80) to have a colonoscopy, and less likely than siblings to have a PAP smear (risk ratio [RR] 0.98; CI 0.97–0.99). However, they were more likely than siblings (RR 1.14; CI 1.03–1.27) and population controls (RR 1.05; CI 1.01–1.10) to have a mammogram. Among survivors at increased risk for a SMN, only 92/809 (11.4%) reported a colonoscopy within the COG recommended 5-year period, 164/537 (30.5%) reported a mammogram within a 1-year period and 1288/4833 (26.7%) reported a skin exam. Care at a cancer center was associated with mammography (RR 1.91; 95% CI 1.02–1.27) and skin exam (RR 1.55; 95% CI 1.22–196) in high-risk patients. Conclusions: Childhood cancer survivors are not screened adequately for SMNs. Surveillance is very poor amongst those at highest risk for colon, breast, or skin cancer. Survivors and their physicians need education about the importance of surveillance. 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→