Optimal timing of radical cystectomy in T1 high-grade bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T1 high-grade (formerly T1G3) bladder cancer is a challenging clinical entity representing approximately 10-15% of all new bladder cancer cases. The variable natural history of the disease and possible impairment in quality of life associated with radical treatment makes T1 high-grade one of the most challenging uro-oncological patient groups to manage. In particular, the risk of clinical understaging and not recognizing muscle-invasive disease may have detrimental effects on patient outcome. The cornerstone of contemporary staging is restaging transurethral resection (TUR), which helps in defining further management. In patients with restaging TUR stage less than T1, induction bacillus Calmette-Guérin combined with maintenance offers good results. The option of radical cystectomy should be discussed with patients with restaging TUR stage T1 or higher and it is highly recommended to all patients with recurrent T1 of carcinoma in situ during bacillus Calmette-Guérin maintenance. In addition to restaging TUR stage, several other clinicopathological factors, such T1 substaging, associated carcinoma in situ, tumor size and appearance, lymphovascular invasion, and hydronephrosis, aid in the decision making between radical and conservative treatment. Future prospects include improved staging and molecular markers that may guide toward conservative therapy or allow more cT1 patients to be offered nerve-sparing cystectomies and neobladders and, thus, improving quality of life for patients undergoing radical surgery.
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) | 0.003 | 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".