Outcome of Surgical Treatment of Patients with Upper versus Lower Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Stage-by-Stage Comparison
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it