The neoadjuvant management of bladder cancer in Canada: A survey of genitourinary medical oncologists.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
285 Background: The uptake of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) for the treatment of stage II/III bladder cancer remains variable despite evidence supporting its use. The aim of this study is to better understand the use of NC in Canada to facilitate standardization of practice and develop a platform for clinical trials. Methods: The survey was initially tested on a subset of medical oncologists. It was then e-mailed to 30 medical oncologists across Canada who primarily treat bladder cancer. Results: In total, 25 (83%) surveys were completed. Respondents were 92% academic based, 100% full time, and 52% in practice for >10 years. The majority of referrals for all stages came from urologists with 4 respondents (16%) seeing 5-10 cases/yr, 10 (40%) seeing 11-15/yr, 5 (20%) seeing 16- 20/yr and 6 (24%) seeing >20/yr. Of these 8 reported having only 1-2 referrals for NC; 7 had 3-4 NC referrals; 7 had 5-6 NC referrals; and 2 reported seeing >6 referrals/year. Patients referred for NC tended to be younger (50-65); Performance Status (PS) 0/1; T-stage T3a/T3b; or nodal status N1/N2. 96% indicated they do offer NC to selected patients as both standard of care and to downsize tumors. Key factors cited for not offering NC were: Age >85, PS 3/4; T-stage T2a or T4a; Nodal status: N3; GFR <40ml/min. Main baseline staging modalities included CT chest/abdomen/pelvis, bone scan and cystoscopy. Gemcitabine/cisplatin was most commonly used with 20% using high-dose MVAC. Six (27%) reported doing midway staging with CT abdomen/pelvis and cystoscopy; 36% report staging after completion of chemo. Average time from last chemotherapy to cystectomy was 4-6 wks, with no patients being offered adjuvant chemotherapy postoperatively. Conclusions: The majority of GU MO in Canada would offer NC. Stage, PS, renal function, and comorbidities were the biggest determinants of offering NC, while age played a lesser role. The number of overall referrals for NC, however, remains relatively low. We plan to survey urologists in Canada to determine if differences in attitudes about NC or barriers to referrals account for the low number of referrals. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".