MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The neoadjuvant management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) in Canada: A national survey of urologists.

2012· article· en· W2560249597 on OpenAlexaffabout
Srikala S. Sridhar, Kim N., Scott North, Peter C. Black, Lori Wood, Tina Hsu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerCystectomyReferralInternal medicineCancerCystoscopyGeneral surgeryOncologyFamily medicineUrinary system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

303 Background: There is level 1 evidence and a 5% absolute survival benefit supporting the use of cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) for the management of MIBC. Despite this, it is well known that the majority of eligible patients undergoing cystectomy do not receive NC. We previously surveyed medical oncologists and found that the majority will offer NC to MIBC patients depending on stage, renal function, performance status (PS), and comorbidities. However, the number of MIBC patients being referred for consideration of NC by urologists remains low. The aim of this followup survey to urologists was to better understand their approach to MIBC, and referral patterns for NC. Methods: A survey consisting of 24 questions was administered to Canadian urologists belonging to the Canadian Urologic Oncology Group. Respondents completed the survey and mailed/faxed back their responses. The survey was similar to, but not identical to the previous medical oncology survey. Results: Of the 25 respondents, 21/25 (84%) were academic, >90% were in full-time practice, and 72% were practising for >10 yrs. Most (84%) treated over 20 bladder cancer cases annually. Overall, 22/25 (80%) will offer a NC approach if appropriate. In 2009, 9/24 (38%) sent >6 referrals for NC; 2/24 (25%) sent 5-6 referrals, 6/24 (20%) sent 3-4 referrals, and 5/24 (8%) sent 1-2 referrals. NC was offered as standard of care or to downsize tumors. Initial staging included cystoscopy, CT chest/abdo/pelvis and bone scan. Key factors cited for not offering NC were: T2a disease, GFR <40ml/min, age >85 or PS 3 or 4. Average time from NC to cystectomy was 4-6 wks. Conclusions: The majority of academic urologists in Canada will refer MIBC patients for NC except those with T2a disease, poor renal function, age >85 or poor PS. Non-academic urologists are underrepresented in this survey, and may represent the group facing the greatest challenges in offering NC, due to issues such as access to medical oncology, or lack of local expertise in managing MIBC. Targeting non-academic urologists, and encouraging consultation with a medical oncologist for all patients with MIBC, may lead to increased utilization of NC, and better outcomes in this disease.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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