Adherence to surveillance guidelines in survivors of hodgkin lymphoma: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10047 Background: Pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable disease. However, survivors are at high risk for long-term complications of therapy. The impact of sociodemographic and clinical factors on adherence to late effects surveillance guidelines is unknown. Methods: The CCSS is a retrospective cohort with prospective follow-up of survivors diagnosed from 1970-1999. HL survivors enrolled in CCSS who responded to a 2017 questionnaire were included. We assessed adherence to the Children’s Oncology Group surveillance guidelines for cardiomyopathy, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and skin cancer. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (aOR [95% CI]) for sociodemographic and clinical risk factors associated with adherence. Estimates were adjusted for area deprivation index (ADI); chronic health conditions; recent (≤2 years) routine check-up, cancer center or survivorship clinic visit; and possession of a survivorship care plan (SCP). Results: 1,380 HL survivors (45.6% male; median age 43.6 years, range 21.6-65.9 years) responded, of whom 55.5% were at elevated risk for cardiac dysfunction, 71.0% for breast cancer, 83.5% for skin cancer, and 39.4% for colorectal cancer. Of those at elevated risk, 42.7%, 19.9%, 31.3% and 48.9% were adherent to the guidelines for cardiac, breast, skin, and colorectal screening, respectively. Predictors of adherence to cardiac dysfunction guidelines were male sex (aOR 1.7 [1.1-2.6]), having children (aOR 1.6 [1.1-2.4]), recent routine checkup (aOR 4.0 [1.3-13.1]), recent visit to a cancer center or survivorship clinic (aOR 6.2 [3.9-10.0]), and possession of a SCP (aOR 3.1 [1.9-5.0]). Adherence to breast cancer guidelines was higher in those who were unmarried (aOR 2.1 [1.0-4.1]), had a recent visit to a cancer center or survivorship clinic (aOR 3.7 [2.0-7.0]), and possessed a SCP (aOR 3.5 [1.5-8.3]). Adherence to skin cancer guidelines was higher in those > 14 years at diagnosis (aOR 1.8 [1.3-2.4]), living in a low deprivation area (ADI 1-24.9) compared to a high deprivation area (ADI 75-100) (aOR 3.4 [1.9-5.9]), employed (aOR 1.8 [1.1-2.9]), > 30 years from diagnosis (aOR 2.4 [1.6-3.6]), with a recent routine check-up (aOR 3.6 [1.1-12.5]), and recent cancer care (aOR 2.4 [1.6-3.5]). Adherence to colorectal cancer guidelines was higher in those with grade 3-4 chronic health conditions (aOR 1.9 [1.1-3.3]). Conclusions: Less than 50% of HL survivors are adherent to screening guidelines. Sociodemographic risk factors are significant predictors of non-adherence, particularly to skin cancer screening guidelines. This threatens to potentiate outcome disparities among HL survivors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".