Prognostic relevance of positive urine markers in patients with negative cystoscopy during surveillance of bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of urine markers in the surveillance of patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is discussed extensively. In case of negative cystoscopy the additional prognostic value of these markers has not been clearly defined yet. The present study is the first systematic approach to directly compare the ability of a urine marker panel to predict the risk of recurrence and progression in bladder cancer (BC) patients with no evidence of relapse during surveillance for NMIBC. METHODS: One hundred fourteen patients who underwent urine marker testing during surveillance for NMIBC and who had no evidence of BC recurrence were included. For all patients cytology, Fluorescence-in-situ-hybridization (FISH), immunocytology (uCyt+) and Nuclear matrix protein 22 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (NMP22) were performed. All patients completed at least 24 months of endoscopic and clinical follow-up of after inclusion. RESULTS: Within 24 months of follow-up, 38 (33.0%) patients experienced disease recurrence and 11 (9.8%) progression. Recurrence rates in patients with positive vs. negative cytology, FISH, uCyt+ and NMP22 were 52.6% vs. 21.9% (HR = 3.9; 95% CI 1.75-9.2; p < 0.001), 47.6% vs. 25.0% (HR 2.7; 1.2-6.2; p = 0.01), 43.8% vs. 22.4% (HR 3.3; 1.5-7.6; p = 0.003) and 43.8% vs. 16.7% (HR 4.2; 1.7-10.8; p = 0.001). In patients with negative cytology, a positive NMP22 test was associated with a shorter time to recurrence (p = 0.01), whereas FISH or uCyt+ were not predictive of recurrence in these patients. In the group of patients with negative cytology and negative NMP22, only 13.5% and 5.4% developed recurrence and progression after 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with positive urine markers at time of negative cystoscopy are at increased risk of recurrence and progression. In patients with negative cytology, only NMP22 is predictive for recurrence. Patients with negative marker combinations including NMP22 harbour a low risk of recurrence. Therefore, the endoscopic follow-up regimen may be attenuated in this group of patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".