MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4360605945 · doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000003309.01

MP56-01 THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT CONCURRENT CHEMOTHERAPY REGIMENS ON OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS TREATED WITH RADIATION FOR MUSCLE INVASIVE BLADDER CANCER

2023· article· en· W4360605945 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francis Lemire, Ronald Kool, Marcq Gautier, Robert Siemens, Bobby Shayegan, Michael Kim, Ionut Busca, Hamidreza Abdi, Mark Dawidek, Michael Uy, Gagan Fervaha, Fabio Cury, Nimira Alimohamed, Jonathan I. Izawa, Claudio Jeldres, Ricardo Rendon, Peter C. Black, Girish S. Kulkarni, Wassim Kassouf, Rodney H. Breau

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Urology · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRadiation therapyBladder cancerCancerChemotherapyPsychoanalysisPsychologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP56-01 THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT CONCURRENT CHEMOTHERAPY REGIMENS ON OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS TREATED WITH RADIATION FOR MUSCLE INVASIVE BLADDER CANCER Francis Lemire, Ronald Kool, Marcq Gautier, Robert Siemens, Bobby Shayegan, Michael Kim, Ionut Busca, Hamidreza Abdi, Mark Dawidek, Michael Uy, Gagan Fervaha, Fabio Cury, Nimira Alimohamed, Jonathan Izawa, Claudio Jeldres, Ricardo Rendon, Peter Black, Girish Kulkarni, Wassim Kassouf, and Rodney Breau Francis LemireFrancis Lemire More articles by this author , Ronald KoolRonald Kool More articles by this author , Marcq GautierMarcq Gautier More articles by this author , Robert SiemensRobert Siemens More articles by this author , Bobby ShayeganBobby Shayegan More articles by this author , Michael KimMichael Kim More articles by this author , Ionut BuscaIonut Busca More articles by this author , Hamidreza AbdiHamidreza Abdi More articles by this author , Mark DawidekMark Dawidek More articles by this author , Michael UyMichael Uy More articles by this author , Gagan FervahaGagan Fervaha More articles by this author , Fabio CuryFabio Cury More articles by this author , Nimira AlimohamedNimira Alimohamed More articles by this author , Jonathan IzawaJonathan Izawa More articles by this author , Claudio JeldresClaudio Jeldres More articles by this author , Ricardo RendonRicardo Rendon More articles by this author , Peter BlackPeter Black More articles by this author , Girish KulkarniGirish Kulkarni More articles by this author , Wassim KassoufWassim Kassouf More articles by this author , and Rodney BreauRodney Breau More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003309.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Radiotherapy is an accepted treatment approach for well-selected patients with bladder cancer. Randomized control trials have shown superior outcomes to patients who receive concurrent chemotherapy compared to radiation monotherapy. However, there are limited data to guide selection of the optimal radio-sensitizing regimen. METHODS: Canadian academic centres contributed to a retrospective cohort of muscle invasive (cT2-4N0-2) bladder cancer patients treated with curative-intent radiotherapy, with or without concurrent chemotherapy. Patients were stratified and analyzed by radio-sensitizing chemotherapy regimen. Outcomes were metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival (MFS, CSS, and OS). RESULTS: Of 656 patients, 268 (41%) were treated with radiation monotherapy, 174 (27%) with cisplatin, 108 (16%) with gemcitabine, 74 (11%) with 5FU-MMC, and 32 (5%) with carboplatin. The median follow-up was 24 months (95% CI: 21–27). In the entire cohort, the median MFS was 35 months (95% CI: 29–44), median CSS not reached (95% CI: 94–not reached) and median OS 52 months (95% CI 42–60). Disease characteristics were similar between groups, but patients who received radio-sensitizing chemotherapy were younger and had fewer comorbidities. Compared to no chemotherapy, concurrent cisplatin was associated with improved MFS (HR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.35-0.60), CSS (HR 0.44; 95% CI: 0.31-0.64) and OS (HR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.24-0.43). Concurrent 5FU-MMC was also associated with improved MFS (HR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.40-0.88), CSS (HR 0.32; 95% CI: 0.16-0.66), and OS (HR 0.45; 95% CI: 0.28-0.71). Concurrent gemcitabine was associated with improved MFS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.58-1.02), CCS (0.76; 95% CI 0.49-1.27), and OS (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.57-1.02). Concurrent carboplatin was associated with improved MFS (HR 0.55; 95% CI: 0.33-0.92), CSS (HR 0.64; 0.43-1.27), and OS (HR 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MIBC treated with RT have better oncologic outcomes with all forms of radio-sensitizing chemotherapy. While the best outcomes are associated with cisplatin, other radiosensitizers seem to be effective for platinum-ineligible patients. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e773 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Francis Lemire More articles by this author Ronald Kool More articles by this author Marcq Gautier More articles by this author Robert Siemens More articles by this author Bobby Shayegan More articles by this author Michael Kim More articles by this author Ionut Busca More articles by this author Hamidreza Abdi More articles by this author Mark Dawidek More articles by this author Michael Uy More articles by this author Gagan Fervaha More articles by this author Fabio Cury More articles by this author Nimira Alimohamed More articles by this author Jonathan Izawa More articles by this author Claudio Jeldres More articles by this author Ricardo Rendon More articles by this author Peter Black More articles by this author Girish Kulkarni More articles by this author Wassim Kassouf More articles by this author Rodney Breau 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)0,008
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: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,040
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,133

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0400,004

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 Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,292
Écart entre enseignants0,278 · 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

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Urology→Même sujetBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→