MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7101418041 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaf161.1784

Cancer Registration in an LMIC: Insights from a Comprehensive Cancer Center in Luxor

2025· article· en· W7101418041 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralCancer registryCancerCohortBreast cancerProspective cohort studyCohort studyProstate cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Cancer registries are vital for informing cancer control, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where data is limited. This study describes the Shefa Al Orman Hospital (SOH) Cancer Registry in Luxor, Egypt, which follows ICD-O3, SEER staging, and Toronto pediatric staging. Methods A prospective cohort registry was established at SOH from May 2016 to May 2024. Data were collected via house made electronic health records and included demographics, tumor site, morphology, stage, diagnosis method, survival, and geolocation. Descriptive statistics and crude rate calculations were used to analyze distributions and regional patterns. Results A total of 44,134 patients were registered: 42,807 adults and 1,327 children. Patients came from Luxor (44.7%), Qena (34.2%), and other governorates (21%). There were 22,479 (50.9%) cancer cases, 9,203 (20.8%) non-cancer (reflecting weak referral systems and limited primary care), 1,106 (2.5%) deaths before diagnosis (delayed presentation/referral), 6,737 (15.2%) lost to follow-up (suggesting fear or low awareness), and 2,491 (5.6%) referred. In females, top cancers were breast (42.8%), digestive (15.9%), and female genital (9.4%). In males: digestive (30.5%), respiratory (13.7%), and urinary (13.4%). Annual crude cancer rates per 100,000 (8 years): Luxor: Qesm Luxor(246.5), Armant(191.6), Tiba(184.4), Qurna(178.2), Luxor Markaz(162.7), Esna(136.0). Qena: Southern Qena: Qus (110.3), Naqada (97.0), Qeft (76.4). Northern Qena: Qena Markaz (43.4), Farshout (39.7), Deshna (38.1), Nag Hammadi (48.2) The lower rates in northern Qena likely reflect that southern Qena residents primarily attend SOH, while those in the north often seek care in Sohag Conclusions The SOH registry shows that high-quality cancer registration is feasible in LMICs. It highlights the need for better early detection, awareness, referral efficiency, and care coordination, offering a model for cancer control in resource-limited settings. Key messages • Cancer registries in LMICs can reveal critical gaps in referral, diagnosis, and follow-up that impact timely cancer care. • SOH registry data supports early detection and improved care coordination in underserved 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)0.003
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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207