MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of prior platinum agent and site of primary in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) receiving salvage therapy.

2014· article· en· W2589858858 on OpenAlexaff
Guru Sonpavde, Joaquim Bellmunt, Jonathan E. Rosenberg, Dean F. Bajorin, Ashley Marie Regazzi, Toni K. Choueiri, Angela Qu, Günter Niegisch, Peter Albers, Andrea Necchi, Giuseppe Di Lorenzo, Ronan Fougeray, Yu‐Ning Wong, Srikala S. Sridhar, Yoo‐Joung Ko, Matthew I. Milowsky, Matt D. Galsky, Gregory R. Pond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarboplatinInternal medicineOncologyPazopanibDocetaxelRegimenGemcitabineChemotherapy regimenChemotherapyUrologyCisplatinSunitinibCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

336 Background: The prognostic impact of prior platinum agent (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) and site of primary (bladder vs. other) in the context of salvage therapy for advanced UC is unknown. Methods: We pooled 10 prospective phase II trials of ≥ second-line therapy for advanced UC with data recorded for prior platinum agent and site of primary in addition to major prognostic factors: TFPC (time from prior chemotherapy), Hb (hemoglobin), PS (performance status), and LM (liver metastasis) status. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association of prior platinum agent and site of primary with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Trial was included as a stratification factor throughout. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate PFS and OS. Results: Of 731 patients overall, 559 had received one prior chemotherapy regimen, 663 were evaluable for prior platinum regimen and 512 for site of primary. The overall median PFS and OS were 2.7 and 6.8 months, respectively. The trials evaluated vinflunine (N=151), docetaxel +/- vandetanib (N=148), paclitaxel-gemcitabine (N=98), sunitinib (N=77), volasertib (N=50), nab-paclitaxel (N=48), everolimus (N=45), pazopanib (N=43), cetuximab +/-paclitaxel (N=39) and paclitaxel-cyclophosphamide (N=32). Prior platinum was cisplatin in 501 (75.6%) and carboplatin in the rest. Prior carboplatin was associated with worse OS on univariate analysis (HR 1.23 [1.00-1.52], P=0.048) but not significantly associated with either OS or PFS on multivariate analysis. Bladder was the site of primary in 388 (75.8%). The site of primary was not significantly associated with PFS and OS in either univariate or multivariate analyses. Conclusions: Neither prior platinum agent (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) nor site of primary (bladder vs. other) were independently associated with OS or PFS in patients receiving salvage therapy for advanced UC. Trials of salvage therapy may continue to utilize the previously recognized prognostic factors, and could allow patients with all sites of primary disease and regardless of the prior platinum agent. These data need external validation.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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