Outcome of Surgical Treatment of Patients with Upper versus Lower Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Stage-by-Stage Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: It remains controversial whether we can apply similar principles in the management of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UUT-UC) based on the behavior of bladder urothelial carcinoma (B-UC). We sought to assess whether UUT-UC and B-UC have similar biology and performed a stage-by-stage comparative analysis of outcome between the 2 groups. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent nephroureterectomy for UUT-UC and radical cystectomy for B-UC from 1991 to 2006. Standard variables were collected and recurrence-free and overall survival (OS) rates were calculated. RESULTS: 280 patients with a median age of 69 years were included (99 UUT-UC treated via nephroureterectomy and 181 B-UC treated via radical cystectomy). Median follow-up was 29 months. None received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with UUT-UC presented less commonly with invasive disease compared to those with B-UC (44 vs. 77% were >pT2). Overall, 5-year OS for the B-UC group was significantly lower than for the UUT-UC group (60.8 vs. 74.5%, p = 0.02). However, when patients were stratified by stage (>pT2), patients with B-UC had similar OS compared to those with UUT-UC (54.6 vs. 60.8%, p = 0.74). CONCLUSION: Invasive UUT-UC appears to have similar tumor biology compared to B-UC. Whether we can safely extrapolate on the benefit of neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies to patients with UUT-UC requires further investigation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".