MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2941005461 · doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000555680.51731.d0

MP26-15 MOLECULAR SUBTYPING REVEALS LUMINAL BLADDER TUMORS HAVE LOWER RATES OF PATHOLOGICAL UPSTAGING AT RADICAL CYSTECTOMY

2019· article· en· W2941005461 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Y. Lotan, Stephen A. Boorjian, Jingbin Zhang, Trinity J. Bivalacqua, Seth P. Lerner, Sima P. Porten, Thomas M. Wheeler, Ryan Hutchinson, Franto Francis, Marguerite du Plessis, Elai Davicioni, Robert S. Svatek, Peter C. Black, Ewan A. Gibb

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Urology · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCystectomySubtypingMedicinePathologicalUrologyBladder cancerPathologyInternal medicineCancer

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyBladder Cancer: Invasive I (MP26)1 Apr 2019MP26-15 MOLECULAR SUBTYPING REVEALS LUMINAL BLADDER TUMORS HAVE LOWER RATES OF PATHOLOGICAL UPSTAGING AT RADICAL CYSTECTOMY Yair Lotan*, Stephen Boorjian, Jingbin Zhang, Trinity Bivalacqua, Seth Lerner, Sima Porten, Thomas Wheeler, Ryan Hutchinson, Franto Francis, Marguerite du Plessis, Elai Davicioni, Robert Svatek, Peter Black, and Ewan Gibb Yair Lotan*Yair Lotan* More articles by this author , Stephen BoorjianStephen Boorjian More articles by this author , Jingbin ZhangJingbin Zhang More articles by this author , Trinity BivalacquaTrinity Bivalacqua More articles by this author , Seth LernerSeth Lerner More articles by this author , Sima PortenSima Porten More articles by this author , Thomas WheelerThomas Wheeler More articles by this author , Ryan HutchinsonRyan Hutchinson More articles by this author , Franto FrancisFranto Francis More articles by this author , Marguerite du PlessisMarguerite du Plessis More articles by this author , Elai DavicioniElai Davicioni More articles by this author , Robert SvatekRobert Svatek More articles by this author , Peter BlackPeter Black More articles by this author , and Ewan GibbEwan Gibb More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555680.51731.d0AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Upstaging of bladder cancer from precystectomy clinical stage ≤T2 to non-organ confined pathologic stage ≥T3 or N+ at radical cystectomy (RC) is common and can significantly increase the risk of cancer-specific mortality (CSM). We assessed the ability of a genomic subtyping classifier (GSC) to predict pathological upstaging in a multi-institutional cohort of patients with clinical T1-T2 bladder cancer treated with RC. METHODS: A cohort of 206 patients with clinical high-grade, organ-confined (cT1-T2, N0M0) treated with RC and bilateral PLND without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) was selected from the registries of 7 academic hospitals. Precystectomy bladder tumor transurethral resection FFPE specimens were submitted for genomic testing with the Decipher Bladder assay (GenomeDx, San Diego, CA). Uni- and multi-variable logistic regression analysis (UVA/MVA) were used to evaluate a locked GSC for upstaging, defined as pT3/T4 and/or pTanyN1-3 disease at RC. Cumulative incidence of CSM was calculated using Fine-Gray competing risks. RESULTS: Upstaging to non-organ confined disease (≥T3 and/or ≥N1) occurred in 23% of cT1 and 57% of cT2 cases, respectively. Stratifying for clinical stage, fewer patients with luminal tumors were upstaged to ≥pT3 compared to non-luminal tumors (M-H p-value = 0.002; cT1: 13% vs 34%, cT2: 34% vs 58%, respectively). On UVA and MVA, non-luminal patients were significantly more likely to upstage (≥pT3) at RC compared to luminal patients (p<0.001 for both). Conversely, rates of upstaging to ≥N1 disease were similar when considering clinical stage and subtype. Rates of upstaging to ≥N1 at cT1 were 13% for both luminal and non-luminal patients (p>0.9). Similarly, for cT2, upstaging to ≥N1 was 15% for luminal and 23% for non-luminal patients (p=0.56). Luminal patients also trended toward having better prognosis as determined by lower CSM rates compared to non-luminal patients (p=0.061). CONCLUSIONS: Molecular subtyping revealed luminal tumors have lower rates of upstaging compared to non-luminal tumors. Combined with previous reports that the benefit of NAC may be greatest in basal tumors, these data suggest that subtyping may have utility in identifying higher risk patients who could be prioritized for NAC. Nevertheless, approximately one-third of luminal tumors with cT2 tumors are upstaged to non-organ confined disease. These patients should continue to receive NAC until further studies evaluate the implications of immediate cystectomy. Source of Funding: Trancriptome profiling was funded by GenomeDx Inc. Dallas, TX; Rochester, MN; Vancouver, Canada; Baltimore, MD; Houston, TX; San Francisco, CA; Houston, TX; Dallas, TX; Vancouver, Canada; San Diego, CA; San Antonio, TX; Vancouver, Canada© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e358-e359 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Yair Lotan* More articles by this author Stephen Boorjian More articles by this author Jingbin Zhang More articles by this author Trinity Bivalacqua More articles by this author Seth Lerner More articles by this author Sima Porten More articles by this author Thomas Wheeler More articles by this author Ryan Hutchinson More articles by this author Franto Francis More articles by this author Marguerite du Plessis More articles by this author Elai Davicioni More articles by this author Robert Svatek More articles by this author Peter Black More articles by this author Ewan Gibb More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,042

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of UrologyMême sujetBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207