MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Travel distance to tertiary sarcoma centres does not influence oncological presentation or outcomes

2025· article· en· W4408031441 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aaron Gazendam, Liuzhe Zhang, David Clever, Anthony M. Griffin, Jay S. Wunder, Peter C. Ferguson, Kim Tsoi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bone & Joint Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcomaReferralRetrospective cohort studyCohortDemographicsSoft tissue sarcomaPresentation (obstetrics)Proportional hazards modelTertiary careOverall survivalHealth careDemographyInternal medicineSurgeryFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: Soft-tissue sarcomas (STSs) are rare cancers with centralized care advocated to consolidate resources and expertise. However, geographical challenges, particularly in countries like Canada, can increase travel distances for patients. The impact of travel distance on sarcoma presentation and outcomes remains unclear, particularly in single-payer healthcare systems with centralized care. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on 1,570 patients with STS who underwent surgical resection at a Canadian tertiary referral centre between January 2010 and January 2021. Patients were divided into those living ≤ 50 km and > 50 km from the centre. Demographics, tumour characteristics, treatment methods, and survival outcomes were analyzed. A Cox regression model was constructed to evaluate predictors of overall survival. Results: Patients living > 50 km from the centre (n = 700) travelled a mean of 176 km (SD 250), while those ≤ 50 km (n = 870) travelled a mean of 24.8 km (SD 13.8). There were no significant differences in disease presentation, time to definitive treatment, use of systemic therapies, or functional outcomes between the two groups. The two-year and five-year overall survival rates were similar between the groups (83.1% (95% CI 80.1% to 86.1%) vs 83.8% (95% CI 81.8% to 85.8%) and 72.1% (95% CI 69.1% to 75.1%) vs 72.5% (95% CI 69.5% to 75.5%), respectively). The regression model demonstrated that age, higher tumour grade, depth, and lower income were predictive of worse overall survival, while distance travelled was not an independent predictor of survival. Conclusion: Contrary to previous studies, our findings suggest that travel distance did not influence disease presentation or survival outcomes in STS patients treated at a centralized sarcoma centre. This challenges previous notions regarding the impact of travel distance on cancer outcomes, and supports the effectiveness of centralized care models, even in geographically vast regions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 venueThe Bone & Joint JournalSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207