MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404438015 · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2024.11.021

Clinical management of patients with colorectal intramucosal carcinoma compared to high-grade dysplasia and T1 colorectal cancer

2024· article· en· W4404438015 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Edgard Medawar, Roupen Djinbachian, Douglas Rex, Michael Vieth, Heiko Pohl, Ioana Popescu Crainic, Mahsa Taghiakbari, Paola Marques, Daniel Kaufman, Felix Huang, Daniel von Renteln

Bibliographic record

VenueGastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMontreal General HospitalUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistère de la SantéCanadian Association of GastroenterologyFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociaux
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerDysplasiaInternal medicineGastroenterologyCarcinomaCancerOncologyColonoscopyGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the colorectum, intramucosal carcinoma (IMC), like high-grade dysplasia (HGD), should be resected endoscopically. We were interested to understand how real-world treatment of IMC cases compares to management of HGD and T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: A multicenter cohort study was conducted. Through pathology databases, all patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2019 with HGD, IMC, or T1 CRC polyps at 3 hospitals in a regional Canadian center were identified. The primary outcome was the proportion of surgical management of IMC compared to HGD after complete endoscopic resection. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of synchronous advanced neoplasia (SAN) and the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for metachronous advanced neoplasia (MAN) in the 3 groups among patients eligible for follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 753 patients with IMC or HGD on a first pathology diagnosis, including 601 after complete endoscopic resection. Patients with IMC were more likely to undergo surgery after complete endoscopic resection compared to patients with HGD (10.5% [6 of 57] vs 0% [0 of 544], P < .001). A total of 455 patients had follow-up endoscopy and pathology (mean age, 67.1 years; 42.2% female; median follow-up, 3.4 years): 269 with HGD, 60 with IMC, and 126 with T1 CRC. Proportions of SAN were 24.2%, 26.7%, and 25.4% (P = .908). Compared to HGD, patients with IMC and T1 CRC had similar MAN risks (aHR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.43-1.59] and aHR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.66-2.05], respectively). No lymph node findings were positive (0 of 363), and no metastasis occurred among patients with IMC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with colorectal IMC were more likely to undergo surgery after complete endoscopic resection than when HGD was diagnosed, although they were not at increased risk of SAN or MAN in this study, and the known risk of nodal metastasis with colorectal IMC is small (0%-2%). Unless a patient diagnosed with IMC is particularly concerned with this small risk, complete endoscopic resection should be considered the definitive treatment for IMC and should not be followed by surgery.

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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastrointestinal EndoscopySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207