A delay in radical cystectomy of >3 months is not associated with a worse clinical outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first three papers in this section relate to the use of radical cystectomy in bladder cancer, and each study describes issues which are uncommonly written about, but which are relevant and important to any urologist who manages such patients. There is also a paper from Cleveland describing the rare condition of neuroendocrine tumours in the kidney. This is a large series of cases, and the authors recommend awareness of the condition and the prudent use of immunohistochemical neuroendocrine markers. There are a further six papers on prostate cancer; two of them evaluate high‐grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, taking different views on the subject. OBJECTIVE To examine the association between the interval from the last transurethral resection (TUR) to radical cystectomy (RC) and bladder cancer‐specific outcome, as the decision to proceed to RC for an individual patient is complex, and recent reports suggest an interval from diagnosis to RC of >3 months is associated with adverse outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS The records of 592 patients who had RC were reviewed; the interval from the last TUR was analysed as both a continuous and categorical variable (<3 vs ≥3 months). Logistic regression and survival analyses were used to evaluate the association between the interval to RC with pathological characteristics and clinical outcomes. RESULTS The mean ( sd ) actuarial cancer‐specific survival was 70.5 (2.3)% and 60.7 (3.2)% at 3 and 7 years, respectively. Overall, the median (range) time from TUR to RC was 1.8 (0.3–11.6) months. The interval to RC analysed as a continuous or categorical variable was not associated with extravesical or nodal disease, lymph node metastases, disease recurrence, overall or cancer‐specific survival. The results were similar in the subgroup of 320 patients (54%) with clinically muscle‐invasive disease. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that a reasonable delay from the last TUR to RC is not independently associated with stage progression or with decreased recurrence‐free or disease‐specific survival. These findings might have important implications for trial design in the ongoing evaluation of neoadjuvant regimens. Nevertheless, we see no reason to advocate anything less than the timely consideration of definitive treatment for patients with high‐risk bladder cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".