Pathological stage review is indicated in primary pT1 bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a pathology review on the clinical outcome of patients with primary pT1 bladder cancer (BC), as the clinical course of such patients is variable. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The slides of 164 primary (first diagnosis) pT1 bladder tumours from two university hospitals were reviewed by one pathologist for stage and grade (World Health Organization 1973 and 2004). Patients were initially managed conservatively with bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG). Uni- and multivariate analyses compared the predictive value of age, gender, hospital, carcinoma in situ (CIS), tumour-size, reviewed grade and reviewed stage. RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, there was disease progression in 48 (29%) patients and 26 (16%) died from BC. Associated CIS was found in 55 (34%) patients. After reviewing the slides, 24 (15%) tumours were downstaged to pTa, 134 (82%) remained pT1 and six (4%) were upstaged to > or =pT2. The grade review resulted in 74 G2, 90 G3, 37 low-grade and 127 high-grade lesions for the two systems used. In multivariate analyses, reviewed stage (both P < 0.001) and CIS (P = 0.017 and 0.023) had independent significance for progression and disease-specific survival, respectively. CONCLUSION: A stage review is indicated in pT1 BC, as almost 20% of pT1 tumours were up- or downstaged, and the reviewed stage predicted the patient's prognosis. Hence, pathology review identified patients with different prognoses who might benefit from other treatment strategies than BCG. We confirmed that CIS is an unfavourable sign in pT1 bladder cancer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".