MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387297178 · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000002922

Anal Cancers in Previously Screened Versus Unscreened Patients: Tumor Stage and Treatment Outcomes

2023· article· en· W4387297178 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Walker, Alexandra Easson, Ali Hosni, John Kim, Anna Santiago, Tyler R. Chesney, Irving E. Salit

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Colon & Rectum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal and Anal Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)Surgical oncologyOdds ratioAnal cancerRadiation therapyCohortCancerOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Targeted screening programs for patients at high risk for anal squamous-cell carcinoma have been proposed; however, the evidence in support of screening remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether screening high-risk patients (predominantly those living with HIV) detected squamous-cell carcinoma at an earlier stage compared to the routine practice of not screening. DESIGN: This is a cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a quaternary care center in Canada. PATIENTS: Included patients were at least 18 years old with a pathologic diagnosis of invasive anal squamous-cell carcinoma between 2002 and 2022. INTERVENTIONS: Patients diagnosed through a high-risk screening program were compared to those who did not undergo screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was clinical stage at presentation, categorized as T1N0M0 vs other. Secondary outcomes included treatments received, treatment failure, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 612 patients with anal squamous-cell carcinoma were included, with 26 of those patients diagnosed through a screening program. Patients with screen-detected cancers had greater odds of presenting with T1N0M0 tumors compared to unscreened patients (18 [69.2%] vs 84 [14.3%]; adjusted OR 9.95; 95% CI, 3.95-25.08). A propensity score-matched sensitivity analysis found similar results (OR 11.13; 95% CI, 4.67-26.52). Screened patients had greater odds of treatment with wide local excision alone, as opposed to any combination of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery (3 [12.5%] vs 18 [3.2%]; OR 4.38; 95% CI, 1.20-16.04). There were no statistically significant differences in treatment failure or overall survival between groups. LIMITATIONS: The small number of screened patients limits the power of the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for anal squamous-cell carcinoma among high-risk populations detects cancers at an earlier stage. Patients with screen-detected cancers also had a greater likelihood of being candidates for wide local excision alone, which may have spared them the morbidity associated with chemoradiotherapy or abdominoperineal resection. See Video Abstract. CNCERES DE ANO EN PACIENTES PREVIAMENTE DETECTADOS POR CRIBADO VERSUS NO DETECTADOS ESTADIO DEL TUMOR Y RESULTADOS DEL TRATAMIENTO: ANTECEDENTES:Se han propuesto programas de cribado dirigidos a pacientes con alto riesgo de carcinoma anal de células escamosas; sin embargo, la evidencia a favor de la detección sigue sin estar clara.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo determinar si el cribado de pacientes de alto riesgo (predominantemente aquellos que viven con el VIH) detectó el carcinoma de células escamosas en una etapa más temprana en comparación con la práctica habitual de no cribado.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio de cohortes.CONFIGURACIÓN:Este estudio se realizó en un centro de atención cuaternaria en Canadá.PACIENTES:Los pacientes incluidos tenían al menos 18 años con un diagnóstico patológico de carcinoma de células escamosas anal invasivo entre 2002 y 2022.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes diagnosticados mediante un programa de cribado de alto riesgo se compararon con aquellos que no se sometieron a cribado.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue el estadio clínico en la presentación, categorizado como T1N0M0 versus otro. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron los tratamientos recibidos, el fracaso del tratamiento y la supervivencia general.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 612 pacientes con carcinoma anal de células escamosas, con 26 de esos pacientes diagnosticados a través de un programa de cribado. Los pacientes con cánceres detectados mediante cribado tenían mayores probabilidades de presentar tumores T1N0M0 en comparación con los pacientes no cribados (18 [69.2%] frente a 84 [14.3%]; razón de probabilidad ajustada 9.95; intervalo de confianza del 95 % 3.95 -25.08). Un análisis de sensibilidad emparejado por puntaje de propensión encontró resultados similares (odds ratio 11.13; intervalo de confianza del 95% 4.67 -26.52; p < 0.001). Los pacientes examinados tenían mayores probabilidades de recibir tratamiento con escisión local amplia sola, en comparación con cualquier combinación de quimioterapia, radiación y cirugía (3 [12.5%] frente a 18 [3.2%]; razón de probabilidad 4.38; intervalo de confianza del 95 % 1.20 -16.04). No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el fracaso del tratamiento o la supervivencia global entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:El pequeño número de pacientes evaluados limita el poder del análisis.CONCLUSIONES:La detección del carcinoma anal de células escamosas entre las poblaciones de alto riesgo detecta los cánceres en una etapa más temprana. Los pacientes con cánceres detectados mediante cribado también tenían una mayor probabilidad de ser candidatos para una escisión local amplia sola, lo que puede haberles evitado la morbilidad asociada con la quimiorradioterapia o la resección abdominoperineal. (Traducción --Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez ).

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the Colon & RectumSame topicColorectal and Anal CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207