MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589348657 · doi:10.1111/bju.13819

Systematic review of the oncological and functional outcomes of pelvic organ‐preserving radical cystectomy ( <scp>RC</scp> ) compared with standard <scp>RC</scp> in women who undergo curative surgery and orthotopic neobladder substitution for bladder cancer

2017· review· en· W2589348657 on OpenAlexaff
Erik Veskimäe, Y. Neuzillet, Mathieu Rouanne, Steven MacLennan, Thomas Lam, Yuhong Yuan, Éva Compérat, Nigel C. Cowan, Georgios Gakis, Antoine G. van der Heijden, María J. Ribal, J. Alfred Witjes, Thierry Lebrét

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystectomyMedicineUrologySurgeryBladder cancerInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy (POPRC) for women may improve postoperative sexual and urinary functions without compromising the oncological outcome compared with standard radical cystectomy (RC). OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of POPRC on sexual, oncological and urinary outcomes compared with RC in women who undergo standard curative surgery and orthotopic neobladder substitution for bladder cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Embase, Cochrane controlled trials databases and clinicaltrial.gov were systematically searched for all relevant publications. Women with bladder cancer who underwent POPRC or standard RC and orthotopic neobladder substitution with curative intent were included. Prospective and retrospective comparative studies and single-arm case series were included. The primary outcomes were sexual function at 6-12 months after surgery and oncological outcomes including disease recurrence and overall survival (OS) at >2 years. Secondary outcomes included urinary continence at 6-12 months. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was performed using standard Cochrane review methodology including additional domains based on confounder assessment. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The searches yielded 11 941 discrete articles, of which 15 articles reporting on 15 studies recruiting a total of 874 patients were eligible for inclusion. Three papers had a matched-pair study design and the rest of the studies were mainly small, retrospective case series. Sexual outcomes were reported in seven studies with 167/194 patients (86%) having resumed sexual activity within 6 months postoperatively, with median (range) patients' sexual satisfaction score of 88.5 (80-100)%. Survival outcomes were reported in seven studies on 197 patients, with a mean follow-up of between 12 and 132 months. At 3 and 5 years, cancer-specific survival was 70-100% and OS was 65-100%. In all, 11 studies reported continence outcomes. Overall, the daytime and night-time continence rates were 58-100% and 42-100%, respectively. Overall, the self-catheterisation rate was 9.5-78%. Due to poor reporting and large heterogeneity between studies, instead of subgroup-analysis, a narrative synthesis approach was used. The overall RoB was high across all studies. CONCLUSION: For well-selected patients, POPRC with orthotopic neobladder may potentially be comparable to standard RC for oncological outcomes, whilst improving sexual and urinary function outcomes. However, in women undergoing RC, oncological and functional data regarding POPRC remain immature and require further evaluation in a prospective comparative setting.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.009
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations93
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207