Impact of rectal cancer multidisciplinary conferences on patient care plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Multidisciplinary conferences (MDCs) are standard of care for rectal cancer, and literature suggests that MDCs result in changes in as many as 50% of treatments plans. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of changes to treatment plans at MDCs at our local institution. Secondary outcomes included clinician attendance, change in pathology and radiology reports and the association between tumour stage and care plan changes. METHOD: Pre- and postconference plans were prospectively collected. Care plan changes were defined as either major (intermodality) or minor (intramodality). Changes to radiology reports (T, N, M, extramural venous invasion or mesorectal fascial status) and pathology reports (primary diagnosis, status of mismatch repair or high-risk features) were tabulated. Associations between stage and conference plan outcome were determined with Fisher's exact test and multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Pre- and postconference plans were prospectively recorded for 44 consecutive meetings. A total of 276 patients were reviewed, with 137 being new diagnoses of rectal adenocarcinoma. Radiology reports were changed in 26% (35/137) of patients and pathology reports were changed in 3% (4/137). Major changes to treatment plans occurred in 12% (17/137) and minor changes occurred in 28% (38/137) of cases. Other than an association between Stage 3 cancers and minor changes, no factor was predictive of care plan changes or confirmation. CONCLUSION: MDC review resulted in changes to 40% of treatment plans, and no factors predicted confirmation of pretreatment plans. Our study supports the value of comprehensive review of every rectal cancer by MDC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".