MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Urothelial cancer: Impact of gender on stage at diagnosis and survival.

2012· article· en· W2559857122 on OpenAlexaff
Jeanne M. du Manoir, Suzanne Richter, Srikala S. Sridhar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineStage (stratigraphy)CarboplatinInternal medicineChemotherapyCancerRadiation therapyDiseaseOncologyCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

316 Background: Gender differences for disease course and survival in various cancers exist. Gender disparity for both stage at diagnosis and overall survival (OS) has been observed in urothelial cancer (UC). We report a single institution analysis of UC patients treated with chemotherapy to further investigate gender differences in outcomes. Methods: We identified 198 bladder cancer pts treated with chemotherapy since 2002. Chemotherapy was either given as adjuvant or palliative and the most common regimens used were gemcitabine and cisplatin, gemcitabine and carboplatin or gemcitabine alone. Age and stage at diagnosis, sex, smoking status, radiation exposures, bloodwork as a measure of organ dysfunction and overall survival info was collected. Outcomes were compared using Chi Square Statistic. Results: Age at diagnosis, smoking status and prior pelvic radiation were not significantly different (females 66.1 yrs vs males 63.6 yrs; 54% smokers in both groups; 8.3% females vs 7.6% males exposed to radiation). Significantly more females were diagnosed with advanced disease than men (70.8% vs 58.7%, p=0.049) vs earlier stages (stage 0-I) (12.2% vs 35.9%, p=0.03). For patients deceased, OS was not significantly different between genders when analysed for all stages combined (deceased 41.5 vs 39.9 mos), or for those diagnosed only at Stage IV (deceased 12.4 vs 8.6 mos). Of patients still alive at time of review, a survival advantage was apparent for men at all stages (54.8 vs 38.7 months), as well as with stage IV disease (35.9 vs 19.7 months). Gemcitabine-cisplatin was given more often to men with stage IV disease than females (93% vs 63%, p<0.02) despite no difference in organ dysfunction, or ECOG performance status in females. Conclusions: We observed that while both genders are similar with respect to age at UC diagnosis, risk factors exposures (smoking, radiation) and pathological variants, females were diagnosed at later stages, and receive standard first line therapy less often. Our data suggest that this impacts negatively on OS in females diagnosed in earlier disease stages. Further research is needed to identify if we can improve outcome by promoting earlier diagnosis and more aggressive management in earlier disease in females.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.240
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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