Systemic therapy for bladder cancer – a medical oncologist’s perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced bladder cancer, both muscle-invasive localized disease and metastatic disease, is managed with systemic chemotherapy. Cisplatin-based multi-agent chemotherapy remains the cornerstone for systemic therapy. MVAC (methotrexate-vinblastine-doxorubicin-cisplatin) has been most rigorously studied, both neoadjuvantly and for palliation of metastatic disease. For metastatic disease, cisplatin-gemcitabine (GC) has compared favorably to MVAC due to improved tolerability with similar efficacy. GC has been adopted as standard therapy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer improves survival among those patients eligible to receive cisplatin. Adjuvant chemotherapy is difficult to administer effectively given morbidity of radical cystectomy, and studies have shown mixed results about its benefit. Non-cisplatin regimens have been investigated but remain experimental and reserved for those not candidates for cisplatin in the metastatic setting. While multiple agents have been studied after metastatic disease progression after cisplatin-based therapy, there remain no FDA-approved therapies for the second line. Future trials with anti-VEGF therapy and immunotherapy are actively being investigated. This review examines the systemic therapy available to oncologists with current evidence and future directions.
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) | 0.001 | 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".