Platinum retreatment in second line chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC): Assessing the concept of platinum sensitivity and predictors of survival.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e16024 Background: Although there is no uniform consensus about standard second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic UC, retreatment with second line platinum-based regimens (SLPR) is commonly practiced. This study aimed to identify factors predicting survival in SLPR including the concept of platinum sensitivity. Methods: Pooled data of patients at three institutions with metastatic UC treated with SLPR for disease progression following standard first-line platinum regimens was assessed. The influence of potential prognostic factors on overall survival (OS) including the platinum-free interval (PFI) (defined as the interval from completion of the first-line to initiation of second-line platinum-based therapy), were assessed through univariate and multivariate Cox-regression analysis. Results: A total of 51 patients were eligible for analysis. SLPR differed from first-line in 45 patients (88%): nedaplatin (25 patients); carboplatin (11 patients); oxaliplatin (10 patients); and cisplatin (5 patients). Eighteen patients (35%) had objective response to first-line platinum regimens, whereas 16 (31%) had objective response to second-line (1 CR (2%); 15 PR (29%); 13 SD (25%); 17 PD (33%); Unknown (12%)). The median progression free survival (PFS) and OS from second-line treatment were 5.0 and 10.3 months respectively. The PFI did not predict PFS (median PFS, 4.2 and 5.3 months for interval < and ≥ 6 months respectively, p= 0.65) or OS (median OS, 10.3 and 9.8 months for interval < and ≥ 6 months respectively, p = 0.73). In multivariate analysis, liver metastasis (HR 4.17, 95% CI: 1.67-10.31, p = 0.004) and ECOG PS ≥ 1 (HR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.04 – 4.61, p = 0.04) were the only independent factors for inferior OS. Conclusions: Although 31% of patients had objective response with platinum retreatment, the PFI was not predictive of survival in UC. Liver metastasis and ECOG PS were predictors of inferior survival in this patient population. Further studies are required to identify those who may benefit from SLPR.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".