MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Are we systemically under treating cisplatin-eligible patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are undergoing bladder preservation by chemoradiotherapy?

2016· article· en· W2589609144 on OpenAlexaff
Srikala S. Sridhar, Shaheena Bashir, Peter Chung, Alexandre R. Zlotta, Neil Fleshner, Robert G. Bristow, Girish S. Kulkarni, Miriam Teich, Nimira Alimohamed, Gregory Lo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of DurhamUniversity Health NetworkLakeridge HealthPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyBladder cancerGemcitabineCisplatinChemoradiotherapyNeutropeniaUrologyRadiation therapyFebrile neutropeniaChemotherapyOncologyCystoscopyInternal medicineCancerSurgeryUrinary system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

417 Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) improves survival in MIBC pts regardless of local management-cystectomy or chemoradiation. NC use with chemoradiation has been limited as these pts are often elderly, frail and cisplatin-ineligible. But, as more fit, cisplatin-eligible pts opt for chemoradiation it is critical that we re-evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of giving NC followed by chemoradiation. Methods: We reviewed 25 MIBC pts with cT 2-4 N 0-1 M 0, undergoing chemoradiation between 2008-2014 at the Princess Margaret and Durham Regional Cancer Centers. All pts received NC with gemcitabine-cisplatin (2-4 cycles) then external beam radiation (median dose 60Gy) with concurrent cisplatin. Toxicities were recorded using CTCAE v 3.0. Response and outcomes were assessed by cystoscopy and imaging. Median follow-up was 29.7 mos and 6 pts had < 2 yrs of follow-up. Kaplan Meier analysis was used for survival. Results: Main reasons for a chemoradiation approach were pt preference 15/25 (60%) and comorbidities 10/25(40%). At diagnosis, median age was 69 (49-85), 76% were male, all were ECOG PS 0/1, median CrCl was 58.5 ml/min and 7/25 (28%) had hydronephrosis. CIS was seen in 10/25 (40%), LVI in 3/25 (12%) and node positivity in 2/25 (8%). All but 1 patient completed planned NC, where main Grade 3/4 toxicities as expected were neutropenia and infection. All planned radiotherapy and 83% of planned concurrent chemotherapy was given. Maximal TURBT was done in 76%. Cystoscopically post NC, 12/15 (80%) had a CR, 1/15 (7%) had CIS, and 2/15 (13%) had residual disease. Of the 12 pts with a CR, radiologically 4/12 had a CR, 2/12 had a PR and 6/12 had SD. Four pts required salvage cystectomy for local recurrence, 4 pts developed metastases and have died. Median OS was not reached, but the 2 yr OS rate was 73.8% (95% CI 50.3-87.4%). Conclusions: NC followed by chemoradiation, showed cystoscopic CR rates of 80% post NC and 2 yr OS rates of 73.8% suggesting this approach should be considered in cisplatin-eligible MIBC pts undergoing chemoradiation. Comparing outcomes between matched MIBC pts receiving NC and then chemoradiation or cystectomy also appears warranted.

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)0.024
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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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