Associations between pathological features and risk of metachronous colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC) are at risk of developing another primary colorectal cancer - metachronous CRC. Understanding which pathological features of the first tumour are associated with risk of metachronous CRC might help tailor existing surveillance guidelines. Population-based CRC cases were recruited from the United States, Canada and Australia between 1997 and 2012 and followed prospectively until 2022 by the Colon Cancer Family Registry. Metachronous CRC was defined as a new primary CRC diagnosed at least 1 year after the initial CRC. Those with the genetic cancer predisposition Lynch syndrome or MUTYH mutation carriers were excluded. Cox regression models were fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations. Of 6085 CRC cases, 138 (2.3%) were diagnosed with a metachronous CRC over a median follow-up time of 12 years (incidence: 2.0 per 1000 person-years). CRC cases with a synchronous CRC were 3.4-fold more likely to develop a metachronous CRC (adjusted HR: 3.36, 95% CI: 1.89-5.98) than those without a synchronous tumour. CRC cases with MMR-deficient tumours had a 72% increased risk of metachronous CRC (adjusted HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.11-2.64) compared to those with MMR-proficient tumours. Compared to cases who had an adenocarcinoma histologic type, those with an undifferentiated histologic type were 77% less likely to develop a metachronous CRC (adjusted HR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.06-0.94). Existing surveillance guidelines for CRC survivors could be updated to include increased surveillance for those whose first CRC was diagnosed with a synchronous CRC or was MMR-deficient.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".