Methods to Improve Efficacy of Intravesical Mitomycin C: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intravesical chemotherapy (i.e., placement of the drug directly in the bladder) with mitomycin C is beneficial for patients with superficial bladder cancer who are at high risk of recurrence, but standard therapy is empirically based and patient response rates have been variable, in part because of inadequate drug delivery. We carried out a prospective, two-arm, randomized, multi-institutional phase III trial to test whether enhancing the drug's concentration in urine would improve its efficacy. METHODS: Patients with histologically proven transitional cell carcinoma and at high risk for recurrence were eligible for the trial. Patients in the optimized-treatment arm (n = 119) received a 40-mg dose of mitomycin C, pharmacokinetic manipulations to increase drug concentration by decreasing urine volume, and urine alkalinization to stabilize the drug. Patients in the standard-treatment arm (n = 111) received a 20-mg dose without pharmacokinetic manipulations or urine alkalinization. Both treatments were given weekly for 6 weeks. Primary endpoints were recurrence and time to recurrence. Treatment outcome was examined by use of Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank tests. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Patients in the two arms did not differ in demographics or history of intravesical therapy. Dysuria occurred more frequently in the optimized arm but did not lead to more frequent treatment termination. In an intent-to-treat analysis, patients in the optimized arm showed a longer median time to recurrence (29.1 months; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 14.0 to 44.2 months) and a greater recurrence-free fraction (41.0%; 95% CI = 30.9% to 51.1%) at 5 years than patients in the standard arm (11.8 months; 95% CI = 7.2 to 16.4 months) and 24.6% (95% CI = 14.9% to 34.3%) (P =.005, log-rank test for time to recurrence). Improvements were found in all risk groups defined by tumor stage, grade, focality, and recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a pharmacologically optimized intravesical mitomycin C treatment with statistically significantly enhanced efficacy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".