MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Surgical care and outcomes in older patients with cancer through implementation of a pre-surgical toolkit (OPTI-Surg): Interim results of a phase III cluster randomized trial (Alliance A231601CD).

2023· article· en· W4379283721 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
George J. Chang, Heather Gunn, Anne Barber, Lisa M. Lowenstein, Daniel Dohan, Jenny Broering, Travis Dockter, Angelina D. Tan, Amylou C. Dueck, Lisa Bailey, Selina Chow, Robert K. Cleary, Marc G. Mesleh, Charles E. Woodall, Marc L Solfelt, Emily Finlayson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionPrehabilitationInterim analysisInterimRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyCancerSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1541 Background: Frailty is common in older adults undergoing major cancer surgery. Mounting evidence indicates multimodal interventions to optimize patient functional status by addressing vulnerabilities associated with frailty before surgery result in decreased complications and enhanced functional recovery. This study tested the effectiveness of OPTI-Surg, a surgical prehabilitation toolkit for improving surgical care and outcomes in older patients undergoing major cancer surgery. Here, we report results from the planned futility interim analysis (IA). Methods: Thoracic (T), gastrointestinal (GI), and urologic (GU) oncological surgery practices affiliated with NCI’s Community Oncology Research Program were randomized 1:1:1, stratified by practice type, to usual care (control), OPTI-Surg toolkit, or OPTI-Surg with an implementation coach. The toolkit was implemented at the practice level. It consisted of the 12-item Edmonton Frail Scale and guided recommendations for interventions directed at identified vulnerabilities. Eligible patients were adults ≥70 years old undergoing curative intent surgery for lung, gastrointestinal, or urologic cancers. Primary outcome was 8-week post-operative function (weekly caloric expenditure) derived from the validated Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) questionnaire. A linear mixed model was used to compare usual care to the 2 OPTI-Surg arms combined, controlling for baseline function. Results: From July 2019 to October 2021, 225 patients, 50% of the total accrual goal, were enrolled from 29 practices, triggering the IA. Study was suspended to new patient accrual March to June 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There were no differences in demographics by arm (mean age 76.2 years; 46.4% women; 79.6% white; 20.4% lung resection, 69.8% major GI surgery, 9.8% total cystectomy). Of the 225 patients, 140 (47 Usual Care, 93 OPTI-Surg) were evaluable for the IA. There was no significant difference in post-operative function between OPTI-Surg and usual care (mean decrease of 0.59 kCal/week for OPTI-Surg patients and 0.19 kCal/week for usual care patients, p = 0.762, intraclass correlation = 0.033). Based on the futility analysis, the DSMB recommended closure of recruitment on September 16, 2022. Conclusions: Implementation of the OPTI-Surg toolkit did not significantly improve functional outcomes 8 weeks after surgery for patients aged 70 and older undergoing major cancer surgery compared to usual care. Future analysis of implementation and ethnographic data may identify reasons why significant differences between the intervention and usual care arms were not observed, potentially including disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical trial information: NCT03857620 .

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.426 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→