MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135108459 · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.5-6-471

The Initial Results in Muscle-Invading Bladder Cancer of RTOG 95-06: Phase I/II Trial of Transurethral Surgery Plus Radiation Therapy with Concurrent Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil Followed by Selective Bladder Preservation or Cystectomy Depending on the Initial Response

2000· article· en· W2135108459 on OpenAlexaff
Donald S. Kaufman, Kathryn Winter, William U. Shipley, Niall M. Heney, Michael Chetner, Luís Souhami, Robert A. Zlotecki, William T. Sause, Lawrence D. True

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerUrologyCystoscopyRadiation therapyConcomitantCisplatinCystectomySurgeryUrinary bladderChemotherapyUrinary systemCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the safety, tolerance, and efficacy of transurethral surgery plus concomitant cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and radiation therapy in conjunction with selective bladder preservation in patients with muscle-invading bladder cancer. Patients and Methods. Thirty-four eligible patients with clinical stage T2-T4a, Nx M0 bladder cancer without hydronephrosis were entered into a protocol aimed at selective bladder preservation. Treatment began with as complete a transurethral resection as possible followed by induction chemoradiation. This consisted of cisplatin 15 mg/m(2) i.v. and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 400 mg/m(2) i.v. in the mornings on d 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, and 17. On d 1, 3, 15, and 17, radiation was given immediately following the chemotherapy using twice-a-day 3 Gy per fraction cores to the pelvis for a total radiation dose of 24 Gy. Response was evaluated by cystoscopy, cytology, and rebiopsy four weeks later. Patients with a complete response received consolidation therapy with the same drugs and doses on d 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, and 17 combined with twice-daily radiation therapy to the bladder and bladder tumor volume of 2.5 Gy per fraction for a total consolidation dose of 20 Gy and a total induction plus consolidation dose to the bladder and bladder tumor of 44 Gy. Patients who did not achieve a complete response were advised to undergo prompt cystectomy, as were those with a subsequent invasive recurrence. The median follow up is 29 months. RESULTS: Of the 34 eligible patients, 26 had a visibly complete transurethral resection. One patient did not complete induction treatment due to acute hematologic toxicity. After induction treatment, 22 (67%) of the 33 patients had no tumor detectable on urine cytology or rebiopsy. Of the 11 patients who still had detectable tumor, six underwent radical cystectomy and five underwent consolidation chemoradiation (one because of refusal to have the recommended cystectomy and four because the treating institutions erroneously assigned them to receive consolidation chemoradiation rather than cystectomy). No patient has required a cystectomy for radiation toxicity. Six patients have died of bladder cancer. The actuarial overall survival at three years is 83%. The probability of surviving with an intact bladder is 66% at three years. A total of seven patients (21%) developed grade 3 or grade 4 hematologic toxicity in conjunction with this treatment. CONCLUSION: This aggressive protocol comprising local surgery plus concurrent 5-FU, cisplatin, and high-dose hypofractionated radiation has been associated with moderately severe hematologic toxicity. Longer follow-up will be necessary to assess efficacy. Both the 67% complete response rate to induction therapy and the 66% three-year survival with an intact bladder are encouraging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations218
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe OncologistSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207