MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Benefits, harms, and burden of colorectal cancer screening among childhood cancer survivors previously treated with abdominal-pelvic radiation.

2022· article· en· W4281714680 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer M. Yeh, Claudia L. Seguin, Jillian Whitton, Wendy M. Leisenring, Gregory T. Armstrong, Tara O. Henderson, Melissa M. Hudson, Paul C. Nathan, Joseph Philip Neglia, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Lisa Diller, Amy B. Knudsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Cancer Society
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyColorectal cancerCancerCohortPopulationCumulative incidenceIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10015 Background: Survivors of childhood cancer treated with abdominal-pelvic radiation are at increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). The Children’s Oncology Group recommends early initiation of CRC screening at age 30, yet the benefits and burden are unknown. Methods: We used incidence and mortality data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study to modify the SimCRC model from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to reflect high CRC and competing mortality risks among survivors, assuming the elevated cancer risk arises from higher adenoma onset. Strategies evaluated varied by modality (no screening, colonoscopy, multitarget stool DNA [mtsDNA] testing, fecal immunochemical testing [FIT]), screening start age (25, 30, 35, 40, 45) and screening interval (every 3, 5 or 10 yrs for colonoscopy; every 1, 2 or 3 yrs for mtsDNA and FIT). Abnormal stool test results were followed up with colonoscopy. Screening performance and complication rates were based on published studies. Analyses assumed full uptake and adherence to all screening and follow-up procedures. To identify the optimal strategy for each modality, we estimated the number of colonoscopies required per additional life-year gained and compared it to benchmarks for screening strategies recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for average-risk individuals. Results: Among a simulated cohort of 20-yr-old 5-yr survivors with a history of abdominal-pelvic radiation, the cumulative CRC risk at age 50 was 0.8%, approximately twice that predicted among general population average-risk individuals (0.4%). In the absence of screening, 73 per 1000 survivors would be diagnosed with CRC in their lifetime and 29 would die from the disease. All screening strategies evaluated were estimated to yield substantial reductions in the lifetime number of CRC cases (45-71 cases averted per 1000) and deaths (23-28 deaths averted per 1000). The estimated lifetime number of colonoscopies ranged from 1781 to 14,625 per 1000. The lifetime number of colonoscopy complications was relatively low at 9 to 20 per 1000. Based on the burden-to-benefit ratios, colonoscopy every 10 yrs starting at age 30, mtsDNA every 3 yrs starting at age 30, or FIT every 3 yrs starting at age 25 were the optimal screening strategies identified (Table). Conclusions: Early initiation of screening may substantially reduce CRC mortality among high-risk childhood cancer survivors. These estimates of the balance of screening benefits and burden can inform follow-up care guidelines. [Table: see text]

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207