MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract B013: Epidemiology of early-onset gastrointestinal cancers in Nepal: A scoping review

2025· article· en· W4417202878 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saroj GC, Bishal Paudel

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)EpidemiologyCancerGastrointestinal cancerObservational studyColorectal cancerDiseaseGallbladder cancerHepatocellular carcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: The incidence of early-onset gastrointestinal cancers (EO-GICs, diagnosed <50 years) is rising globally. Low- and middle-income countries such as Nepal face distinct exposures that might influence the disease patterns in younger populations. However, systematic evidence on EO-GICs in these settings is limited. This scoping review aimed to map the available evidence on EO-GICs from Nepal and identify gaps to guide future research and early detection strategies. Methods: This scoping review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Eligible studies included observational studies reporting on patients younger than 50 years with gastrointestinal malignancies (esophageal, gastric, colorectal, hepatobiliary, pancreatic, or gallbladder cancers) in Nepal, while secondary data articles and case reports were excluded. Databases searched included PubMed, NepJol, and relevant grey literature. Reference lists of included articles were also screened. After duplicate removal, titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers, followed by full-text review. Data were synthesized descriptively in narrative formats. Results: A total of 17 hospital-based studies from Nepal were included among 39 records. The colorectal cancer burden was increasing among young adults, with approximately 28% of cases in patients ≤40 years (mean age 31.8-34.1 years). Gastric cancer predominantly affected older adults (mean age 57-63 years), yet 10-22% were under 50. Early-onset gastric cancer cases showed a female predominance and often presented at an advanced stage. Esophageal cancer was most frequent in patients aged 61-70 years (34%); however, 20% were diagnosed before 50 years. Hepatocellular carcinoma affected mainly middle-aged to older adults (mean ages 54-67 years), with 8-26% of cases in younger individuals. Linked risk factors included male sex, viral hepatitis, alcohol use, and cirrhosis; late-stage diagnosis was common. Gallbladder and biliary tract cancers presented in middle-aged adults (mean age 53-56 years), typically presenting at advanced stages, with associated risk factors including gallstones, high parity, early menarche, Terai/Madhesi and Janajati ethnicity, alcohol and pesticide exposure, and low fruit/vegetable intake. Conclusions: Early-onset gastrointestinal cancers in Nepal constitute a significant proportion of the cancer burden, particularly for colorectal and gastric cancers, with younger patients often presenting with distinct clinical features. However, the scarcity of population-based data, national screening programs, and large cohort studies highlights critical knowledge gaps that must be addressed to inform early detection strategies, risk stratification, and targeted interventions in this population. Citation Format: Saroj GC, Bishal Paudel. Epidemiology of early-onset gastrointestinal cancers in Nepal: A scoping review [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: The Rise in Early-Onset Cancers—Knowledge Gaps and Research Opportunities; 2025 Dec 10-13; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(23_Suppl):Abstract nr B013.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0220.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.403
GPT teacher head0.636
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207