Urothelial bladder cancer in young adults: Diagnosis, treatment and clinical behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study is to reveal pathologic characteristics and clinical behaviour of patients 40 years old or younger diagnosed with and treated for urothelial bladder carcinoma. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical and pathologic data of 91 patients, initially diagnosed and treated at our institution from May 1996 to December 2014. Cancer recurrence was defined as new occurrence of bladder cancer at the same or different sites of the bladder. Cancer progression was defined as an increase in stage or grade in any of the recurrences. RESULTS: The mean age was 33.8 (range: 17-40) years. The pathological examination after transurethral resection revealed 83 (91.2%) patients with non-muscle invasive urothelial bladder cancer, and 8 (8.8%) patients with muscle invasive urothelial bladder cancer. According to the distribution of grade, there were 75, 4 and 12 patients with grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 diseases, respectively. Initial cancer staging was: pTa with 40 patients (43.9%), pT1 with 43 patients (47.2%), pT2 with 7 patients (7.6%), and pT3 with 1 patient (1.2%). While 17 (18.6%) patients recurred in the follow-up, 10 (10.9%) patients had progression. There were no differences in recurrence and progression rates in the Ta and T1 stages between groups (p = 0.233, p = 0.511, respectively). CONCLUSION: The risk of progression increased as the number of relapses increased. The clinical behaviour of high-stage and high-grade disease in younger patients is similar to the older group.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".