MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Randomized trial of p53 targeted adjuvant therapy for patients (pts) with organ- confined node-negative urothelial bladder cancer (UBC)

2009· article· en· W2300740433 on OpenAlexaff
Walter M. Stadler, Seth P. Lerner, Susan Groshen, John P. Stein, Donald G. Skinner, Derek Raghavan, Gary D. Steinberg, David P. Wood, Laurence Klotz, Michael Hall, Rick Cote

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphovascular invasionCystectomyInternal medicineBladder cancerRandomizationRandomized controlled trialLymph nodeOncologyClinical endpointPopulationUrologyStage (stratigraphy)Adjuvant therapyCancerGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5017 Background: Retrospective studies suggest that p53 mutation and associated immunohistochemical (IHC) detectable expression are prognostic for recurrence in pts with organ confined UBC and may be predictive for benefit from MVAC adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: Pts with pT1–2N0M0 UBC following radical cystectomy and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection were eligible. IHC for p53 was centrally performed and pts with ≥10% nuclear reactivity were offered randomization to 3 cycles of adjuvant MVAC vs. observation. P53 negative and p53 positive pts who declined randomization were observed. Primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the randomized population. Secondary endpoints were RFS in p53 negative versus p53 positive pts and overall survival in each of these groups. Using a one-sided log-rank test with α = 0.05 and β = 0.15, 190 p53 positive patients were planned to be randomized to detect an absolute improvement in RFS at 3 years (yrs) from 50% to 70% (corresponding hazards ratio of 0.51). Results: 521 pts were registered, 499 underwent successful p53 assessment (male: 80%, <65 yrs: 57%, Caucasian: 91%, pathologic stage P1/P2: 37%/63%, lymphovascular invasion: 20% yes/28% unknown), 272 (55%) were p53 positive and 114 were randomized (42%). Further accrual was halted based on data safety monitoring board review of futility analysis on the first 100 randomized pts. P53 positive tumors were higher grade (97% vs 93% grade 3/4, p = 0.04) and less likely to express p21 (59% vs 84%, p < 0.001). Overall 5-yr RFS was 80 ± 2% with no difference based on p53 status. P53 positive patients declining were older but otherwise similar to those accepting randomization. Only 67% of pts randomized to MVAC received all 3 cycles with 12 (21%) receiving none. There was no difference in RFS in the randomized population (overall 5 yr RFS 83 ± 4%, hazard ratio = 0.88, p = 0.78). Conclusions: The prognostic and predictive value of p53 IHC were not confirmed in this prospective study, but the lower than expected event rate and failures to receive assigned therapy severely compromised the study's power. The value of p53 mutations is being assessed. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→