MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297494231 · doi:10.3389/fnume.2022.917873

Acceptance and disparities of PET/CT use in patients with esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction cancer: Evaluation of mature registry data

2022· article· en· W4297494231 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vaibhav Gupta, Roshini Kulanthaivelu, Ur Metser, Claudia Ortega, Gail Darling, Natalie G. Coburn, Patrick Veit‐Haibach

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Nuclear Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEsophageal cancerMedicineGastro-Gastroesophageal JunctionEsophagogastric junctionCancerInternal medicineRadiologyAdenocarcinomaDiseaseReflux

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/rationale PET/CT plays a crucial role in esophageal (EC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJ) diagnosis and management. Despite endorsement in clinical guidelines, variation in acceptance of PET/CT exists. The aim of this study was to assess the early use of PET/CT among EC and GEJ patients in a regionalized setting and identify factors contributing to disparity in access. Materials and methods Retrospective cohort study of adults with EC or GEJ between 2012 and 2014 from the Population Registry of Esophageal and Stomach Tumours of Ontario and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario). Receipt of PET/CT and relevant demographics were collected, and statistical analysis performed. Continuous data were analysed with t-tests and Wilcoxon rank sum test. Categorical data were analysed with chi-square test. Kaplan–Meier methods were used to estimate median survival. Results Fifty-five percent of patients diagnosed with EC or GEJ between 2012 and 2014 received PET/CT (1321/2390). Eighty-four percent of patients underwent surgical resection (729/870), and 80% receiving radical treatment (496/622) underwent PET/CT. The use of PET/CT increased from 2012 to 2014. Male patients received more PET/CT than females (85% vs.78% p < 0.001). Median survival for the overall cohort was 11.1 months, 17.2 vs. 5.2 months among those who did and did not receive PET/CT and 35 vs. 27 months among the surgical cohort ( p = 0.16). Conclusions We found that PET/CT use increased from 2012 to 2014 and that the majority of EC/GEJ patients being considered for curative therapy received PET/CT. There were also gender disparities identified. PET/CT appears to confer a potential survival benefit in our study, although our assessment is limited. Our findings may serve as learned lessons for other new imaging modalities, new indications for PET/CT or even for the introduction of new radiopharmaceuticals for PET/CT.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Nuclear MedicineSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207