MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417497465 · doi:10.1200/jco-25-00661

Benefits, Harms, and Burden of Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Childhood Cancer Survivors Previously Treated With Abdominopelvic Radiation

2025· article· en· W4417497465 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer M. Yeh, Claudia L. Seguin, Kayla Stratton, Wendy M. Leisenring, Gregory T. Armstrong, Tara O. Henderson, Melissa M. Hudson, Paul C. Nathan, Joseph P. Neglia, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Lisa Diller, Amy B. Knudsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorectal cancer screeningColonoscopyIncidence (geometry)Colorectal cancerChildhood cancerGuidelineCancerCancer screening

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Childhood cancer survivors treated with abdominopelvic radiation (RT) are at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), yet adherence to Children's Oncology Group screening guidelines remains low. Estimating the benefits, burdens, and costs of all guideline-recommended screening modalities, including those not previously evaluated, may help identify strategies that align with survivors' preferences and access, potentially improving adherence. METHODS: Using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and published studies, we adapted a CRC simulation model to evaluate CRC screening among 5-year survivors. Strategies included colonoscopy, multitarget stool DNA (mtsDNA), and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) at various intervals, starting at age 25-45 years. Outcomes included CRC cases and deaths, additional colonoscopies per additional life-year gained (burden-to-benefit ratio [BBR]), and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs]). RESULTS: average-risk individuals). Without screening, an estimated 75 per 1,000 survivors would be diagnosed with CRC in their lifetime and 30 would die from CRC. Screening averted 47-73 cases and 23-29 CRC deaths per 1,000. Based on average-risk BBR benchmarks, the optimal strategies by modality were colonoscopy every 10 years starting at age 30 years, mtsDNA every 3 years starting at age 30 years, and FIT every 3 years starting at age 25 years (then annually as of age 45 years, as recommended for average-risk individuals). ICERs were $146,000 in US dollars (USD)/QALYG, $166,000 (USD)/QALYG, and $123,000 (USD)/QALYG, respectively. CONCLUSION: Early initiation of screening with colonoscopy or stool-based tests may substantially reduce CRC incidence and early mortality among survivors treated with abdominopelvic RT, with reasonable burden-to-benefit trade-offs, and be considered cost-effective. These findings can facilitate clinician-survivor discussions on CRC screening and inform guideline refinements.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207