MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comparative effectiveness of radical cystectomy versus bladder-sparing treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: A population-based report.

2014· article· en· W2589629201 on OpenAlexaff
Maxine Sun, Giorgio Gandaglia, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Jim C. Hu, Simon P. Kim, Paul L. Nguyen, Toni K. Choueiri, Firas Abdollah, Quoc‐Dien Trinh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyBladder cancerHazard ratioConfidence intervalProportional hazards modelRadiation therapyChemotherapyRetrospective cohort studyStage (stratigraphy)PopulationOncologyCohortConfoundingInternal medicineUrologySurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

334 Background: Radical cystectomy (RC) represents the standard of care for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder (UCUB). Alternative organ-conserving treatments such as chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy have gained interest. We sought to compare survival outcomes of patients according to treatment modalities, in a stage-for-stage analysis. Methods: We relied on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare-linked database to identify 12,950 patients diagnosed with T2–T4a N0/x M0 UCUB between years 1992 and 2009. Treatment types include RC (n=5207), chemotherapy/radiation (n=2,669), and surveillance (n=5,074). Following instrumental variable analysis, Cox- and competing-risks regression analyses were performed for prediction of overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM), respectively. All analyses were stratified according to disease stage (T2, T3, T4a). Results: After adjusting for potential confounders, OS was more favorable for RC relative to chemotherapy/radiation (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02–2.40) or surveillance (HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.20–2.78) in patients with T2 UCUB. For the same stage, CSM rates were lower in the surgery group compared to chemotherapy/radiation (HR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.14–3.67) or surveillance (HR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.09–3.48). When analyses focused on individuals with more advanced disease (T3–T4a), no statistically significant difference was observed between chemotherapy/radiation relative to RC for both OS and CSM. Conclusions: In the current retrospective population-based cohort, RC was associated with improved survival outcomes relative to its alternative treatment counterparts. However, this effect was only observable in patients with T2 disease. Conversely, no difference between chemotherapy/radiation vs. surgery was noted in patients with more advanced disease stage.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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