MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407293989 · doi:10.3390/jcm14041099

Characteristics, Therapeutic Approaches and Outcomes of Patients Older than 80 Years Old with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Compared with Younger Patients

2025· article· en· W4407293989 on OpenAlexafffund
Md Yeo, Ioannis A. Voutsadakis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsEssar Steel Algoma (Canada)Sault Area HospitalNOSM University
FundersMach-Gaensslen Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerInternal medicineCancerChemotherapyCarcinoembryonic antigenMedical recordCohortStage (stratigraphy)Retrospective cohort studyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: While advances in therapies have improved metastatic cancer survival rates, elderly patients with colorectal cancer often experience delayed diagnoses, receive less frequent systemic therapies, and show inferior survival outcomes compared to younger groups. Patients over the age of 80 years old face greater treatment risks due to frailty and comorbidities. In this article, we examine characteristics, treatment and outcomes in older adults with metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: The medical records of all patients aged 80 years and above and comparable patients aged 65–75 years old, who were diagnosed with stage 4 colorectal cancer at a cancer center over a six-year period, were retrospectively reviewed. Results: Patients in the 80 years old and older group more frequently had right-sided primary colon cancer (71.5%), compared to younger patients aged 65–75 years old (34.1%, p = 0.006). Patients in the younger cohort more commonly presented with stage 4 disease at initial diagnosis (59.5%) compared to older patients (22.2%). Elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels were more commonly identified in younger metastatic patients (76.3% vs. 46.4%, p = 0.013). Patients in the younger age group were more likely to have received previous neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy prior to metastatic progression (p = 0.02, and p = 0.01); however, a significant difference in palliative chemotherapy was not identified between the age groups of metastatic patients. The adverse effects of chemotherapy treatment were similar between the age groups. Conclusions: The active treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in patients aged 80 and above is feasible when tailored according to the patients’ performance status, comorbidities, and life expectancy. Understanding metastatic disease presentations in elderly patients can improve treatment outcomes in this challenging-to-treat group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207