Prevention and management of complications following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Survey (p=0.04). Similarly, in patients with pT4N0/x disease, BCE omission resulted in a 1.45-fold increase (p=0.02).The main limitation of our study is the lack of data on disease recurrence.Conclusions: Nephroureterectomy with BCE remains the standard of care in the treatment of UC of the renal pelvis and should invariably be performed in patients with locally advanced disease.Conversely, patients with pT1 and pT2 disease could be considered for NU without compromising CSM.However, recurrence data are needed to fully confirm the validity of this option. Editorial CommentBladder cuff excision was regarded standard in all upper urinary tract urothelial tumors.Recently, however, this standard was challenged by reports that did not show any benefit from this procedure.Therefore, this large international, multi-institutional analysis from Canada, Italy and Germany including more than 4200 patients with urothelial cancer of the renal pelvis is very helpful in re-establishing the standard of care for this patient group.Two important observations were made.First, in patients with positive lymph nodes, and in those with >pT2 tumors of the renal pelvis, cancer-specific mortality was significantly higher if bladder cuff excision (BCE) was omitted.Second, no survival benefit was seen in the group with smaller (pT1-2), node-negative tumors.Therefore, BCE may be omitted in select patients of this group.A drawback of the study to my opinion was the lack of inclusion of ureteral cancers and I would hope that the authors will perform another analysis for this important subgroup, too.Still, these data re-establish the standard and strongly support routine BCE in cases with urothelial renal pelvis tumors.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".