1828 SURVIVAL AFTER RADICAL CYSTECTOMY OF NON-BILHARZIAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA VS. UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA: A NORTH-AMERICAN POPULATION-BASED STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyBladder Cancer: Invasive/Metastatic Disease III1 Apr 20101828 SURVIVAL AFTER RADICAL CYSTECTOMY OF NON-BILHARZIAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA VS. UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA: A NORTH-AMERICAN POPULATION-BASED STUDY Daniel Liberman, Claudio Jeldres, Giovanni Lughezzani, Lars Badaus, Maxine Sun, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Paul Perrotte, Hugues Widmer, Francesco Montorsi, Markus Graefen, and Pierre I. Karakiewicz Daniel LibermanDaniel Liberman More articles by this author , Claudio JeldresClaudio Jeldres More articles by this author , Giovanni LughezzaniGiovanni Lughezzani More articles by this author , Lars BadausLars Badaus More articles by this author , Maxine SunMaxine Sun More articles by this author , Shahrokh F. ShariatShahrokh F. Shariat More articles by this author , Paul PerrottePaul Perrotte More articles by this author , Hugues WidmerHugues Widmer More articles by this author , Francesco MontorsiFrancesco Montorsi More articles by this author , Markus GraefenMarkus Graefen More articles by this author , and Pierre I. KarakiewiczPierre I. Karakiewicz More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.1766AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES We sought to examine stage at radical cystectomy (RC), as well as cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates in nonbilharzial squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) RC patients relative to patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC) RC of the urinary bladder within a large population-based cohort. We hypothesized that SCC histological subtype fares a worse survival than UC patients. METHODS Of 12311 RC cases, we identified 614 (5.0%) SCC versus 11697 (95.0%) UC individuals within 17 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries, between 1988 and 2006. Differences in the rates of CSM were assessed using the cumulative incidence plots that control for non-cancer related mortality. Univariable and multivariable competing-risks regression models addressed the effect of histological subtype at RC for prediction of CSM. Covariates consisted of age, gender, year of diagnosis, race, pathological T and N stages, as well as tumor grade. RESULTS After accounting for other-cause mortality, the cumulative CSM rates at 5 years were 40.3 and 35.1% for SCC vs. UC patients (p<0.001, Gray). For the same time point, the CSM rates in organ confined (OC) disease were 25.0 and 19.8% for SCC vs. UC patients (p=0.2, Gray) and 46.3 and 49.3% respectively for the same groups of patients in non-organ confined (NOC) disease (p=0.8, Gray). In multivariable competing-risks regression models, SCC was not associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of CSM than UC histological subtype (p=0.06, Gray). Similarly, SCC was unassociated with a higher risk of CSM after stratification according to OC and NOC disease (p=0.2 and p=0.1, Gray). CONCLUSIONS SCC is rare, and more frequently associated with non-organ confined disease. After accounting for non-cancer related mortality, which was never previously done with Cox regression models, SCC was not statistically significantly related to a worse prognosis than UC subtypes. Montreal, Canada© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 183 Issue 4S April 2010 Page: e709 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Daniel Liberman More articles by this author Claudio Jeldres More articles by this author Giovanni Lughezzani More articles by this author Lars Badaus More articles by this author Maxine Sun More articles by this author Shahrokh F. Shariat More articles by this author Paul Perrotte More articles by this author Hugues Widmer More articles by this author Francesco Montorsi More articles by this author Markus Graefen More articles by this author Pierre I. Karakiewicz More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".