The Screening and COnsensus Based on Practices and Evidence (SCOPE) Program Results of a Survey on Daily Practice Patterns for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer—A Swiss Perspective in the Context of an International Viewpoint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Switzerland, physicians do not have national guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patient care and utilize international versions for management recommendations. Moreover, information about adherence to these guidelines and real-world practice patterns in Switzerland or other countries is lacking. The Screening and COnsensus based on Practices and Evidence (SCOPE) program were designed by an international expert panel of gastrointestinal oncologists to gather real-world insights in the current clinical setting to manage patients with mCRC who have received prior treatment. We sought to understand general practice patterns, the influence of molecular diagnostics (e.g., testing for KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and MSI), tumor sidedness, and patient-centric factors on treatment selection utilizing in-person surveys and three hypothetical patient case scenarios. Here, we describe and evaluate the Swiss data from the SCOPE program within the context of an international viewpoint and discuss the findings of our analysis. In general, we find that the real-world clinical decisions of Swiss physicians (SWI) closely follow international (INT) recommendations and guidelines, largely paralleling their regional and international counterparts in using the two approved treatments in the third- and fourth-line settings, namely trifluridine-tipiracil and regorafenib. Finally, our data suggest a tendency toward the use of trifluridine-tipiracil (SWI: 79%; INT: 66%) over regorafenib (SWI: 18%; INT: 18%) as the preferred third-line treatment choice in mCRC patients regardless of KRAS status.
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 | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".