MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044790512 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.448

362 UROTHELIAL CANCER AND RISK OF SUBSEQUENT MALIGNANCIES

2011· article· en· W2044790512 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deepak Pruthi, Zoann Nugent, Alain Demers, Piotr Czaykowski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrothelial cancerBladder cancerCancerMalignancyCancer registryIncidence (geometry)Prostate cancerCohortPopulationOncologyGynecologyRenal pelvisInternal medicineUrinary system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrothelial Cancer: Markers + Natural History & Pathophysiology1 Apr 2011362 UROTHELIAL CANCER AND RISK OF SUBSEQUENT MALIGNANCIES Deepak Pruthi, Zoann Nugent, Alain Demers, and Piotr Czaykowski Deepak PruthiDeepak Pruthi Winnipeg, Canada More articles by this author , Zoann NugentZoann Nugent Winnipeg, Canada More articles by this author , Alain DemersAlain Demers Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author , and Piotr CzaykowskiPiotr Czaykowski Winnipeg, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.448AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Urothelial cancers remain among the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Bladder cancers have been highly correlated with the diagnosis of subsequent primary malignancies. Examination of urothelial cancers should include bladder, renal pelvis, or ureter (BPRU). The purpose of this study is to examine the likelihood of developing a second primary malignancy following the diagnosis of urothelial cancer. METHODS Subjects diagnosed with urothelial cancer between April 1, 1985 and December 31, 2006 were identified from the Manitoba Cancer Registry. Data were collected on all subsequent diagnoses of a new malignancy in this cohort; subsequent urothelial cancer diagnoses were excluded. Standardized incidence ratio (SIRs) were calculated for each major cancer type, matched with the general population by age, sex, and period. Relative risks for each cancer type were calculated. Data for males were analyzed including and excluding prostate cancers. RESULTS Of 4,412 included urothelial cases, 712 patients (16.1%) subsequently developed a second primary malignancy. Overall, the risk for developing a second primary was similar between the sexes, even when prostate cancer was excluded (female SIR: 1.30, CI = 1.09–1.54; males 1.42, CI = 1.31–1.54; males excluding prostate SIR: 1.22 CI = 1.11–1.35). The risks of developing a second primary was highest within one year of diagnosis and diminished thereafter; the group at greatest risk was males aged less than 70 (SIR = 6.25; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 5.08–7.04). There was an increased relative risk for developing a second primary for cancers of the kidney (male), lung, breast (female), and prostate. Papillary cancers were associated with increased relative risk of developing lung, prostate, and breast (female and male). CONCLUSIONS There is an increased probability of detecting a second primary cancer (particularly in smoking-related cancers) among subjects diagnosed with urothelial cancer even when prostate cancer is excluded. Standard Incidence Ratios for selected second primaries > 31 days post bladder cancer diagnosis with comparisons to SEER dataa Site Sex Type Second Primariesb SIR (95% CI)c >70 <70 SEER data (SIR) Sweedish Study (SIR, 95% CI) Kidneyd Female Alle 2 0.90(0.11,3.26) 0.96(0.02,5.35) 0.85(0.02,4.74) 17.79gh 0.60(0.37-0.98) Papillary 2 1.18(0.14,4.27) 1.20(0.03,6.71 1.16(0.03,6.48) TCC 0 0(0,7.22) 0(0,19) 0(0,12) Male All 22 1.75(1.10,2.65) 1.90(0.95,3.40) 1.62(0.81,2.90) 11.08gh 1.38(1.02-1.79) Papillary 15 1.52(0.85,2.51) 1.50(0.60,3.08) 1.55(0.67,3.05) TCC 4 1.83(0.50,4.68) 2.21(0.27,8.00) 1.56(0.19,5.63) Lung Female All 35 2.35(1.69,3.27) 2.52(1.51,3.93) 2.18(1.24,3.53) 2.14g 3.32(2.76,3.99) Papillary 24 2.09(1.34,3.11) 1.98(1.02,3.45) 2.22(1.14,3.87) TCC 8 2.99(1.29,5.90) 3.56(0.97,9.11) 2.58(0.70,6.61) Male All 124 1.65(1.39,1.97) 1.82(1.41,2.34) 1.53(1.20,1.95) 1.54g 2.00(1.85,2.17) Papillary 93 1.59(1.30,1.95) 1.60(1.18,2.17) 1.58(1.20,2.07) TCC 27 2.03(1.34,2.96) 2.70(1.48,4.53) 1.61(0.86,2.75) CRCf Female All 16 0.92(0.52,1.49) 0.63(0.17,1.61) 1.08(0.56,1.89) Colon = 1.05; Rectum = 0.99 Colon = 1.76(1.44-2.15) Rectum = 1.67(1.25,2.24) Papillary 14 1.07(0.59,1.80) 0.79(0.22,2.03) 1.25(0.60,2.30) TCC 1 0.29(0.01,1.60) 0(0,9) 0.4(0.01,2.24) Male All 68 1.03(0.82,1.31) 0.87(0.55,1.30) 1.15(0.86,1.54) Colon=0.99; Rectum=1.01 Colon = 1.21(1.09,1.34); Rectum = 1.22(1.06,1.41) Papillary 51 0.99(0.75,1.31) 0.84(0.50,1.33) 1.10(0.76,1.55) TCC 12 1.04(0.53,1.81) 0.71(0.15,2.07) 1.23(0.56,2.33) Breast Female All 39 1.56(1.11,2.13) 1.42(0.84,2.25) 1.69(1.05,2.59) 0.95 0.98(0.85,1.13) Papillary 32 1.67(1.14,2.36) 1.58(0.90,2.56) 1.78(1.02,2.89) TCC 6 1.30(0.48,2.82) 1.07(0.13,3.85) 1.46(0.40,3.73) Male All 3 3.83(0.79,11.20) 3.33(0.08,18.55) 4.14(0.50,14.97) - 0.95(0.39,2.29) Papillary 3 4.92(1.01,14.38) 4.12(0.10,22.97) 5.44(0.66,19.67) TCC 0 0(0,21) 0(0,62) 0(0,33) Prostate Male All 224 1.83(1.60,2.08) 2.22(1.85,2.66) 1.53(1.27,1.85) 1.14g 1.41(1.34,1.49) Papillary 150 1.57(1.34,1.84) 1.76(1.40,2.20) 1.41(1.13,1.77) TCC 63 2.90(2.27,3.71) 4.16(2.90,5.79) 2.10(1.40,3.04) a This data includes the second cancers following the initial diagnosis of bladder cancer. Patients were eliminated from the calculations once they developed their second cancer. SIRs were calculated with data including prostate cancer. b Number of second primaries in the present study. c 95% CI: 95% confidence interval. Bolded text signifies statistical significance. d Excludes renal pelvis. e Includes bpru. f CRC: colorectal cancer. g P-value < 0.05. h includes kidney,renal pelvis,ureter, and other urinary organs Standardized Incidence Ratio (SIR) of second primary cancers after 31 days by histology of initial tumor, age at diagnosis, and sex Sex Type Overall Count 1985–2007 SIR (95% CI) > 70 Count < 70 SIR (95% CI) < 70 Count < 70 SIR (95% CI) Female All 131 1.30(1.09,1.54) 57 1.26(0.97,1.64) 74 1.33(1.06,1.67) Papillary 101 1.32(1.09,1.60) 44 1.22(0.91,1.64) 57 1.41(1.09,1.83) TCC 22 1.15(0.72,1.74) 9 1.32(0.60,2.50) 13 1.05(0.56,1.80) Male including Prostate All 581 1.42(1.31,1.54) 279 1.61(1.43,1.81) 302 1.28(1.14,1.43) Papillary 425 1.33(1.21,1.46) 200 1.43(1.24,1.64) 225 1.25(1.09,1.42) TCC 128 1.77(1.49,2.10) 63 2.29(1.79,2.93) 65 1.45(1.14,1.85) Male excluding Prostate All 404 1.22(1.11,1.35) 177 1.31(1.13,1.52) 227 1.16(1.02,1.32) Papillary 304 1.19(1.06,1.33) 135 1.25(1.06,1.48) 169 1.15(0.98,1.33) TCC 76 1.27(1.01,1.59) 32 1.47(1.01,2.08) 44 1.15(0.86,1.55) Bolded text indicates statistical significance © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e147-e148 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Deepak Pruthi Winnipeg, Canada More articles by this author Zoann Nugent Winnipeg, Canada More articles by this author Alain Demers Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author Piotr Czaykowski Winnipeg, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207