Long-Term Survival Results of a Randomized Trial Comparing Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin, With Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, Plus Cisplatin in Patients With Bladder Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To compare long-term survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium treated with gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) or methotrexate/vinblastine/doxorubicin/cisplatin (MVAC). Patients and Methods Efficacy data from a large randomized phase III study of GC versus MVAC were updated. Time-to-event analyses were performed on the observed distributions of overall and progression-free survival. Results A total of 405 patients were randomly assigned: 203 to the GC arm and 202 to the MVAC arm. At the time of analysis, 347 patients had died (GC arm, 176 patients; MVAC arm, 171 patients). Overall survival was similar in both arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.34; P = .66) with a median survival of 14.0 months for GC and 15.2 months for MVAC. The 5-year overall survival rates were 13.0% and 15.3%, respectively (P = .53). The median progression-free survival was 7.7 months for GC and 8.3 months for MVAC, with an HR of 1.09. The 5-year progression-free survival rates were 9.8% and 11.3%, respectively (P = .63). Significant prognostic factors favoring overall survival included performance score (> 70), TNM staging (M0 v M1), low/normal alkaline phosphatase level, number of disease sites (≤ three), and the absence of visceral metastases. By adjusting for these prognostic factors, the HR was 0.99 for overall survival and 1.01 for progression-free survival. The 5-year overall survival rates for patients with and without visceral metastases were 6.8% and 20.9%, respectively. Conclusion Long-term overall and progression-free survival after treatment with GC or MVAC are similar. These results strengthen the role of GC as a standard of care in patients with locally advanced or metastatic TCC.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".