Carboplatin and Vinblastine for the Treatment of Metastatic Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Urothelial Tract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many patients with metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) are not appropriate candidates for standard cisplatin-based combination, because of inadequate renal function, poor performance status (PS), and other comorbid medical conditions. We have evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of a combination of carboplatin and vinblastine (CV) as a palliative regimen in these patients. The medical records of patients with metastatic TCC, who had been treated with CV at the British Columbia Cancer Agency from 1995 until 1999, were retrospectively reviewed. Treatment consisted of carboplatin (area under the curve = 5) on day 1, and vinblastine (4 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8, repeated every 4 weeks. A total of 42 patients were included in this study, of whom 39 had measurable disease. Median age was 73 years. Fifty-two percent of patients had a PS (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) of 2 or 3. Node-only disease was present in 26% of patients, bone metastasis in 26%, and liver metastasis in 24%. A total of 119 cycles were administered. Grade IV granulocytopenia occurred in 26% of patients, grade III anemia in 12%, and there were 3 episodes of febrile neutropenia occurring in two patients. The major nonhematologic toxicity was grade III fatigue in 17% of patients. There were no grade IV nonhematologic toxicity or treatment-related deaths. The overall response rate was 33% (13 of 39). Five patients (13%) achieved a complete response and 8 patients (20%) a partial response. The median duration of response was 32 weeks and median overall survival for all patients was 26 weeks. The combination of carboplatin and vinblastine given in this schedule is a feasible, well-tolerated, and active alternative for patients with metastatic TCC unfit for standard chemotherapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".