MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2500755305 · doi:10.1200/jco.2016.67.9423

Management Considerations After Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer

2016· letter· en· W2500755305 on OpenAlexaff
Libni Eapen, Robert M. MacRae

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyBladder cancerRadiation therapyRandomized controlled trialStage (stratigraphy)ChemotherapyClinical trialCancerOncologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TO THE EDITOR: We write about the Grand Rounds case discussion by Sonpavde et al in a recent issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. The discussion illustrates the twin challenges presented by locally advanced urothelial bladder cancer. The first challenge, which was covered well in the detailed review, is the risk of distant metastases. This risk is mitigated by a 5% survival gain with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and a disease-free survival gain with adjuvant chemotherapy. What is missing from the discussion is the second oncologic challenge of pelvic recurrence. In the presented patient case, the eventual pT3N1 stage gave the patient a 15% to 30% risk of pelvic recurrence either in isolation or, more likely, together with distant relapse. This pelvic failure rate has been demonstrated in multi-institutional case series, individual institutional series, and the two large randomized trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which all demonstrated that chemotherapy unfortunately does not reduce the pelvic recurrence rate. This pelvic failure is an absolute ceiling on potential curability and also can be a source of significant clinical morbidity. Bladder cancer remains the one cancer for which optimization of locoregional control with multimodality therapy has not been studied rigorously. That is now set to change with the currently accruing NRG GU001 trial, which is a phase II randomized study of postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy in this setting. If all other solid tumors can be taken as an example, it is likely that bladder cancer too will benefit from the best of surgery, adjuvant radiotherapy, and systemic treatment. It is by offering patients the possibility of enrollment into this and other trials that we will improve the outlook for this disease. To finish by returning to the presented patient case: It so happens that, in the interest of safety, the NRG trial currently excludes patients with a neo bladder, so systemic treatment is the sole active, treatment option. If the patient did not have a neoadjuvant bladder, he would have been eligible for the radiation trial even if he received systemic adjuvant treatment postoperatively.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0200.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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