MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk-stratified multidisciplinary ambulatory management of malignant bowel obstruction (MAMBO) program in women with advanced gynaecological cancers: A prospective study.

2024· article· en· W4399604378 on OpenAlexafffund
Vikas Garg, Husam Alqaisi, Pamela Soberanis Pina, Ana Veneziani, Anmol Kaur Pannu, Brooke Grant, Dina Braik, Crystal Wang, Arundhati Shukla, Azieb Tesfu, Oyinlade Odujoko, Ainhoa Madariaga, Yeh Chen Lee, Lisa Wang, Nazlin Jivraj, Valerie Bowering, Robert C. Grant, Neesha C. Dhani, Amit M. Oza, Stéphanie Lheureux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersPrincess Margaret Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatoryMultidisciplinary approachProspective cohort studyMultidisciplinary teamColorectal cancerGeneral surgeryCancerOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

12076 Background: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a dreaded complication encountered in patients (pts) with advanced gynaecological cancers. Survival is short, with most pts requiring long hospital stay for managing symptoms. The aim of this study was to validate prospectively the feasibility of the MBO outpatient management by a systematic risk-stratified multidisciplinary ambulatory approach in pts with advanced gynaecological cancers. Methods: This prospective single site study enrolled pts diagnosed with or at risk of MBO due to gynaecological cancers (NCT03260647) and actively managed by the MBO interdisciplinary team including the outpatient nurse led program (PMID 31550202). Eligible pts underwent comprehensive assessments, and the team provided tailored management recommendations. Those identified as "at-risk" were systematically followed by the nursing team for 4 weeks (wks) and discharged upon complete symptom resolution. MBO patients were proactively monitored for ≥ 4 wks, transitioning to the "at-risk" category upon MBO resolution. The primary endpoint of the study was the ratio of days alive and out of the hospital to days in the hospital within the initial 60 days post-MBO diagnosis. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), the rate of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) administration, and the rate of symptom resolution. Results: A total of 92 pts were enrolled, predominantly with ovarian cancer (91%), median age of 62 years (range, 31-83). At enrolment, 49% (n=45) presented with MBO, while 51% (n=47) were deemed "at risk." Proactive outpatient management by the nursing team resulted in symptom resolution in 93% of "at-risk" pts, with 7% progressing to develop MBO during the first 4 wks in the program. Throughout the study, 62% (n=57) of pts experienced MBO. At the onset of MBO, 81% (n=46) were platinum-resistant with a median of 4 prior lines of therapy (range, 0-11). While 93% of pts (n=53) required in-patient management, the median time for hospitalization durations within the first 30 and 60 days after MBO diagnosis were 7 (range, 0-30) and 12.5 (range, 0-57) days respectively. Ratio of days in hospital/days out hospital within 60 days, median (range): 0.3 (0-19). During MBO, systemic therapy was administered to 77% (n=44) of pts, predominantly with weekly paclitaxel (38%, n=21). Surgical intervention was performed in 11% of pts, included primarily diverting ileostomy in 4 pts. TPN was administered to 33% (n=19) of pts. MBO resolution occurred in 42% (n=24) pts within 60 days, with recurrent episodes in 11% (n=6) pts and MBO symptoms persisted in 58% (n=33). The median OS in pts who had an episode of MBO was 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.6-8.4). Conclusions: This study confirms the feasibility of the ambulatory MBO management with pts managed mainly outside hospital during the 60 days with reduced hospitalization days. Clinical trial information: NCT03260647 .

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.382 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicIntestinal and Peritoneal AdhesionsFrench-language works237,207