Improved Survival in a Cohort of Patients Aged 75 Years and Older With Fecal Immunochemical Testing–Detected Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fecal immunochemical testing is an accepted form of colorectal cancer screening and is recommended for adults up to the age of 75 years in Canadian guidelines. However, many individuals 75 years and older continue to receive fecal immunochemical testing despite being outside accepted guidelines. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether patients aged 75 years and older with screen-detected cancer demonstrated improved outcomes and survival compared with patients with non-screen-detected cancer. DESIGN: This is a retrospective population-based cohort study. SETTINGS: Provincial data were collected from the Alberta Cancer Registry and the Alberta Colorectal Cancer Screening Program between November 2013 and 2019. PATIENTS: We identified an aggregated patient cohort aged 75 years and older with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer from November 2013 to November 2019, as well as patients 75 years and older who underwent fecal immunochemical testing within these dates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of screen-detected colorectal cancers was calculated. Surgical intervention, hospital length of stay, postoperative mortality, and overall survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Between November 2013 and 2019, 3586 patients 75 years and older were diagnosed with colorectal cancer; 690 (19%) were "screen-detected." Screen-detected patients were almost 3 times more likely to undergo surgery (OR, 2.83) and had a 36% overall survival benefit (HR, 0.64) compared with non-screen-detected patients, adjusted for other variables such as age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and stage. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective study design prevents conclusions regarding causation. CONCLUSIONS: Screen detection of colorectal cancer in patients aged 75 years and older is associated with improved overall survival when controlling for other potential confounders. When compared with their non-screen-detected counterparts, these patients have an earlier stage of disease and are more likely to undergo surgical intervention with improved outcomes, irrespective of age. These data may support screening for appropriately selected patients who would otherwise fall outside of current guidelines. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B986 . SOBREVIDA MEJORADA EN UNA COHORTE DE PACIENTES DE AOS O MS CON CNCER COLORRECTAL DETECTADOS POR RIF: ANTECEDENTES:La prueba basada en una Reacción Inmunoquímica Fecal - RIF, es una forma aceptada de detección de cáncer colorrectal y esta recomendada en adultos a partir de los 75 años en las guías canadienses. Sin embargo, muchas personas de 75 años o más continúan realizándose pruebas inmunoquímicas fecales a pesar de estar fuera de las guías aceptadas.OBJETIVO:Poder determinar si los pacientes de 75 años o más con detección RIF positiva a un cáncer demuestran mejores resultados y sobrevida comparados con los pacientes sin detección.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohortes retrospectivo basado en una población definida.CONFIGURACIÓN:Se recopilaron los datos provinciales del Registro de cánceres y del Programa de detección de cáncer colorrectal de Alberta, Canada, entre 2013 y 2019.PACIENTES:Identificamos una cohorte agregada de pacientes de 75 años o más con diagnóstico de cáncer colorrectal desde noviembre de 2013 hasta noviembre de 2019, así como pacientes de 75 años o más que se sometieron a pruebas inmunoquímicas fecales dentro de las fechas mencionadas.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se calculó la proporción de cánceres colorrectales detectados mediante un cribado. Se analizaron la intervención quirúrgica, la duración de la estadía hospitalaria, la mortalidad post-operatoria y la sobrevida global.RESULTADOS:Entre noviembre de 2013 y noviembre 2019, 3586 pacientes de 75 años o más, fueron diagnosticados con cáncer colorrectal; 690 (19%) fueron detectados por cribado. Los pacientes detectados mediante el cribado, tenían casi tres veces más probabilidades de someterse a una cirugía (Razón de Probabilidad de 2,83) y beneficiaron de una sobrevida general del 36 % (HR 0,64) comparados con los pacientes sin detectación por cribado, corregidos por otras variables como la edad, el índice de comorbilidad de Charlson y el estadío del tumor.LIMITACIONES:El diseño retrospective del presente estudio impide obtener conclusiones con respecto a la causalidad.CONCLUSIONES:La detección por cribado de cáncer colorrectal en pacientes de 75 años o más se asocia con una mejor sobrevida general cuando se controlan los otros posibles factores de confusión. Comparando con las contrapartes no detectadas por cribado, estos pacientes se encuentran en una etapa más temprana de la enfermedad y es más probable que se sometan a una intervención quirúrgica con mejores resultados, independientemente a la edad. Estos datos pueden respaldar la detección de pacientes adecuadamente seleccionados que, de otro modo, quedarían fuera de las pautas actuales. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B986 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".