ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Longitudinal Risk Analysis of Second Primary Cancer after Curative Treatment in Patients with Rectal Cancer.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predicting and improving the response of rectal cancer to second primary cancers (SPCs) remains an active and challenging field of clinical research. Identifying predictive risk factors for SPCs will help guide more personalized treatment strategies. In this study, we propose that experience data be used as evidence to support patient-oriented decision-making. The proposed model consists of two main components: a pipeline for extraction and classification and a clinical risk assessment. The study includes 4402 patient datasets, including 395 SPC patients, collected from three cancer registry databases at three medical centers; based on literature reviews and discussion with clinical experts, 10 predictive variables were considered risk factors for SPCs. The proposed extraction and classification pipelines that classified patients according to importance were age at diagnosis, chemotherapy, smoking behavior, combined stage group, and sex, as has been proven in previous studies. The C5 method had the highest predicted AUC (84.88%). In addition, the proposed model was associated with a classification pipeline that showed an acceptable testing accuracy of 80.85%, a recall of 79.97%, a specificity of 88.12%, a precision of 85.79%, and an F1 score of 79.88%. Our results indicate that chemotherapy is the most important prognostic risk factor for SPCs in rectal cancer survivors. Furthermore, our decision tree for clinical risk assessment illuminates the possibility of assessing the effectiveness of a combination of these risk factors. This proposed model may provide an essential evaluation and longitudinal change for personalized treatment of rectal cancer survivors in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.