MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404709309 · doi:10.1093/oncolo/oyae310

Changes in clinical presentation, management, and survival outcomes in patients affected by colorectal cancer following COVID-19 pandemic

2024· article· en· W4404709309 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alessandro Parisi, Riccardo Giampieri, Silvia Villani, Alice Magnarini, Fabio Gelsomino, Donatella Traisci, F. Barbin, Lisa Salvatore, Clizia Zichi, Francesca Romana Di Pietro, Federica Zoratto, Andrea Lanese, Angelica Petrillo, Ina Valeria Zurlo, Andrea Spallanzani, Nicola D’Ostilio, Michele Ghidini, Maria Bensi, Francesco Schietroma, Chiara Rognone, Olimpia Panepinto, Jessica Paparo, Teresa Gamba, Renato Bisonni, Sara Di Lorenzo, Bruno Daniele, Giulia Mentrasti, Rossana Berardi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersServierAstraZenecaBristol-Myers Squibb CanadaBristol-Myers SquibbAmgen
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineColorectal cancerCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Stage (stratigraphy)PandemicCancerPropensity score matchingOncologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As an extended analysis of the COVID-DELAY study, we aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis, staging, and survival outcomes among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis performed from 2019 to 2022. METHODS: All consecutive newly diagnosed CRC patients referred to 11 Italian Oncology Departments between March and December 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 were enrolled. Access rate, demographics, diagnostic-therapeutic temporal intervals, and first-line progression-free survival (PFS) and OS among metastatic patients were assessed. RESULTS: Compared to 2019 (n = 690), an initial global reduction in new CRC cases in 2020 (n = 564, -18.3%) was observed, followed by a progressive increase in new CRC diagnoses in 2021 (n = 748, + 8.4%) and 2022 (n = 756, + 9.6%); a higher rate of TNM stage IV tumors was diagnosed in 2020 (35.4%) and 2021 (31.0%) compared to 2019 (29.6%), with normalization in 2022 (26.4%) (P < .001). Not clinically relevant differences between histological diagnosis and first oncological examination, cytohistological diagnosis and systemic treatment start, first oncological appointment and systemic treatment start, treatment start and first radiological assessment between 2020 and 2021-2022 years were found. After propensity score matching according to the year of diagnosis, median OS was significantly worse in 2020, 2021, and 2022 compared to 2019 (27.6 vs 24.8 vs not reached vs 38.9 months, respectively) (P < .001). Concordantly, the median PFS was significantly worse with each passing year: 13.0 vs 11.1 vs 9.2 vs 7.2 months in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively (P = .00027). CONCLUSIONS: A progressive normalization in the rate of new CRC diagnosis as well as TNM stages at diagnosis, in 2021 and 2022 compared to 2020 and 2019, was found. The increase in new CRC cases might have affected some diagnostic-therapeutic time intervals in 2021-2022 years compared to 2020. Significantly, compared to the pre-pandemic phase, pandemic years were independently associated with worse PFS and OS outcomes in patients affected by metastatic disease.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe OncologistSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207