Perioperative chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Radical cystectomy with or without systemic chemotherapy is considered a standard of care for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). The purpose of this review is to provide an update on current and recent literature published within the last 12 months reviewing the evidence for use of perioperative chemotherapy for patients with MIBC. RECENT FINDINGS: In the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) setting, the evidence demonstrates clinical efficacy and lower rate of toxicity with the use of high-dose methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (MVAC) compared with standard MVAC. Higher quality evidence for the use of gemcitabine with cisplatin is not yet available. Meta-analysis of cisplatin-based regimens in the adjuvant setting demonstrates significant benefit in overall survival and disease-free survival specifically in patients with lymph-node-positive disease. SUMMARY: The available evidence suggests that along with radical cystectomy, cisplatin-based perioperative chemotherapy should be the standard of care in patients with MIBC with a higher quality and quantity of literature in support of the NAC approach. Adoption of perioperative chemotherapy for MIBC is on the rise in North America, which is reassuring. Novel therapeutic approaches for cisplatin-ineligible patients are currently being investigated.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".