MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Upstaging of urothelial cancer at the time of radical cystectomy: factors associated with upstaging and its effect on outcome

2012· article· en· W1788729872 on OpenAlexaffabout
Polat Türker, Peter J. Boström, Marcelo Langer Wroclawski, Bas van Rhijn, Hannes Kortekangas, Cynthia Kuk, Tuomas Mirtti, Neil Fleshner, Michael A.S. Jewett, Antonio Finelli, Theo Vander Kwast, Andy Evans, Joan Sweet, Matti Laato, Alexandre R. Zlotta

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystectomyMedicineLymphovascular invasionBladder cancerHazard ratioUrologyStage (stratigraphy)PathologicalCancerSurgeryOncologyInternal medicineConfidence intervalMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The reported discordance between staging on transurethral bladder resection and on radical cystectomy pathology in the literature ranges from 20 to 80%.Correct staging in bladder cancer has direct implications for its management. The upstaging from organ-confined (OC) to non-organ-confined (nOC) disease has been reported in 40% of cases. Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is a factor known to be associated with poor clinical outcome. Pathological upstaging was observed in our cohort in 40% of cases and most cases (80%) were upstaged from OC to nOC disease. During the study period the frequency of upstaging observed increased. We found LVI (hazard ratio [HR]= 5.07, 95% CI = 3.0-8.3, P < 0.001) and any histological variant variant (HR = 2.77, 95% CI = 1.6-4.8, P < 0.001) to be strong independent predictors of upstaging. Patients with clinical T2 bladder cancer found with upstaging at the time of radical cystectomy had a poorer outcome than patients with no upstaging. Identification of patients at high risk of upstaging at radical cystectomy is key to improving their management and outcome. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the details of bladder cancer (BC) staging in a large combined radical cystectomy (RC) database from two academic centres. To study rate and time trends, as well as risk factors for upstaging, especially clinical factors associated with staging errors after RC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Characteristics of patients undergoing RC at University Health Network, Toronto, Canada (1992-2010) and University of Turku, Turku, Finland (1986-2005) were analysed. RESULTS: Among 602 patients undergoing RC, 306 (51%) had a discordance in clinical and pathological stages. Upstaging occurred in 240 (40%) patients and 192 (32%) patients were upstaged from organ-confined (OC) to non-organ-confined (nOC) disease. During the study period, upstaging became more common in both centres. In multivariate analyses, T2 disease at initial presentation (P= 0.001, odds ratio [OR]= 2.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.44-4.77), high grade disease (P= 0.01, OR = 2.85, 95% CI: 1.21-6.7), lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (P < 0.001, OR = 5.17, 95% CI: 3.48-7.68), female gender (P= 0.038, OR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.38-0.97, and histological variants (P < 0.001, OR = 2.77, 95% CI: 1.6-4.8) were associated with a risk of upstaging from OC to nOC disease. Upstaged patients had worse survival rates than patients with correct staging. This was especially significant among patients with carcinoma invading bladder muscle before undergoing RC (16% vs 46% 10-year disease-specific mortality, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Upstaging is a common problem and unfortunately no improvements have been observed during the last two decades. LVI and the presence of histological variants are strong predictors of upstaging at the time of RC. Pathologists should be encouraged to report LVI and any histological variant at the time of TURBT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations127
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207