Improving our understanding of the quality of life of patients with metastatic or recurrent/persistent anal cancer: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Chemoradiation (CRT) is used to treat anal carcinomas which, for most patients with loco-regional disease, results in a cure but is associated with acute and chronic complications impairing quality of life (QoL). Patients with metastatic disease or recurrence are likely to experience additional QoL concerns. This paper identifies the QoL issues of these patients and determines whether the EORTC QLQ-ANL27 (QLQ-ANL27), a measure of QoL of patients treated with CRT for anal cancer used alongside the core EORTC QLQ-C30 (QLQ-C30), is suitable or needs adapting. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of studies published between 2014 and 2024 reporting QoL of patients with metastatic or recurrent/persistent anal cancer or follow-up data of patients treated with CRT for anal cancer. RESULTS: This review included 23 papers, only three focused exclusively on metastatic and/or recurrent anal cancer. Most of the 53 reported symptoms related to bowel, urinary, and sexual functioning, with 60% covered by the QLQ-ANL27 or the QLQ-C30. Issues not captured include, for example, neuropathy, hair loss, musculoskeletal problems, urinary incontinence, and embarrassment. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of research looking specifically at QoL outcomes of patients with metastatic or recurrent anal cancer. Whilst the QLQ-ANL27 captures most QoL issues affecting these patients, it might require adapting to improve its sensitivity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".