Pathological Complete Response Induced by the Combination Therapy of Gemcitabine and 24-h Infusion of Cisplatin in Two Cases Initially Diagnosed as Node-Positive Advanced Urothelial Carcinomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on two patients, successfully treated by the combination therapy of gemcitabine and 24-h intravenous infusion of cisplatin, who were initially diagnosed with node-positive advanced urothelial cancer. Each patient had a very good clinical response and underwent curative radical surgery after gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy. A microscopically detailed examination of surgically obtained specimens showed the complete disappearance of malignant cells in the two cases. As a pilot study, we have used the regimen of gemcitabine plus 24-h continuous infusion of cisplatin, instead of bolus injection, for the treatment of 20 patients with node-positive or metastatic urothelial cancer. The clinical response rate in this regimen was 75% (complete response 7/20; 35%, partial response 8/20; 40%). The median overall survival was 665 days. As for the adverse effects, the incidences of severe neutropenia and thrombocytopenia (grade 3-4) were 20% and 15%, which might be less toxic than conventional gemcitabine plus cisplatin therapy. The 24-h infusion of cisplatin combined with gemcitabine can be highly recommended as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced urothelial cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".