A delay in radical nephroureterectomy can lead to upstaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY TYPE: Prognosis (case series). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the delay from diagnosis of upper-tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) to radical nephroureterectomy (RNU), and the pathological features and outcomes, as the decision to proceed to RNU for an individual patient is complex. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of 187 patients who had RNU were reviewed; the interval from diagnosis to RNU was analysed as both a continuous (months) and categorical variable (<3 vs > or =3 months). Logistic regression and survival analyses were used to evaluate the association between time from diagnosis to RNU with pathological characteristics and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The median time from diagnosis to RNU was 45 days (interquartile range 68). A delay from diagnosis to RNU analysed as a continuous variable was associated with advanced stage, higher grade, previous endoscopic procedure, tumour necrosis, infiltrative tumour architecture, and lymphovascular invasion (P = 0.034), but not disease recurrence or cancer-specific mortality. In the subgroup of patients (90, 48.1%) who had muscle-invasive disease (> or =pT2) a longer delay from diagnosis to RNU as a continuous variable was associated with advanced stage (P = 0.030), higher grade (P = 0.014), infiltrative tumour architecture (P = 0.044), lymphovascular invasion (P = 0.034), disease recurrence (P = 0.02), and cancer-specific mortality (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that a delay in the interval from diagnosis to RNU is associated with more advanced disease stage. These findings might have important implications for trial design in the ongoing evaluation of neoadjuvant regimens. Timely consideration of definitive treatment for patients with high-risk UTUC is of high importance. Further studies are necessary to validate these hypothesis-generating findings.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".