Pelvic chemoradiotherapy after chemotherapy for metastatic bladder cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Consolidative radiotherapy has improved local control in other tumors with high local recurrence rates but has not been well studied in urothelial cancer. We hypothesized that pelvic chemoradiotherapy (PCRT) given after systemic chemotherapy for metastatic bladder cancer (MTCC) might alter the pattern of disease recurrence, and reduce the complications and morbidity of intrapelvic disease relapse. A 74% locoregional relapse rate has been observed in MTCC patients with intrapelvic nodal disease after response to chemotherapy. To explore this hypothesis further, we performed a retrospective analysis and report the efficacy, toxicity and pattern of failure with this approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated for MTCC who received consolidative PCRT following at least a partial response to systemic chemotherapy were identified and their charts reviewed for pelvic relapse, disease progression, survival, and toxicity. RESULTS: Twelve patients were identified and median follow-up was 15.6 months. Nine patients developed progressive disease and died, and median survival was 15.6 months. Three patients had pelvic progression (pelvic failure rate 25%). Median time to pelvic failure was 12.8 months. At last follow-up, three patients were alive and disease-free. No life-threatening toxicities were observed. The most common acute non-hematological toxicities were diarrhea and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: These data support a hypothesis that consolidative PCRT following chemotherapy in MTCC patients with systemic disease control may be feasible and efficacious for improving pelvic disease control. This intervention should be considered for further study in prospective controlled clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".