Management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bladder cancer is rare in patients below the age of 50 years, and most patients are in their 60s and 70s. Radical cystectomy is the preferred approach for patients with localized disease in most European countries and the USA, and evidence is growing in favor of neoadjuvant, platinum-based chemotherapy for patients at high risk of local and systemic relapse. Transurethral resection (TUR) followed by radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy appears to be a reasonable alternative, particularly in the UK and Canada. However, the elderly pose several treatment dilemmas, including the increased risk of perioperative complications, the management of orthotopic neobladder or different types of urinary diversion, as well as the higher risk of adverse events caused by pelvic radiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy. Multidimensional parameters such as biologic prognostic factors, performance status, functional independence, comorbidities and cognitive function of the patient should be collected in order to tailor treatment to the patient's life expectancy and preferences. Optimized integration of TUR followed by bladder removal (or radiotherapy), with or without adjunctive chemotherapy, can be recommended for otherwise healthy patients. Palliative measures, such as TUR followed by external radiotherapy alone or monochemotherapy, should be reserved for partially impaired patients with moderate comorbidities, in order to maximize the balance of benefits and toxicities. This review summarizes recent data concerning surgery, radiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy for bladder cancer in the elderly, and discusses pros and cons of the currently available therapeutic options.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".