MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Selective bladder preservation with twice-daily radiation plus 5-flourouracil/cisplatin (FCT) or daily radiation plus gemcitabine (GD) for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer: Primary results of NRG/RTOG 0712—A randomized phase 2 multicenter trial.

2018· article· en· W2794154391 on OpenAlexaff
John J. Coen, Peixin Zhang, Philip J. Saylor, Cheryl T. Lee, Chin‐Lee Wu, William A. Parker, Tim Lautenschlaeger, Anthony L. Zietman, Jason A. Efstathiou, Ashesh B. Jani, Ömer Küçük, Luís Souhami, Joseph P. Rodgers, Howard M. Sandler, William U. Shipley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineBladder cancerRegimenUrologyCystectomyClinical endpointInternal medicineToxicityCisplatinGastroenterologySurgeryOncologyNuclear medicineChemotherapyCancerRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

408 Background: To assess GD or FCT as the chemoradiation (CRT) component of a bladder sparing regimen. Methods: Patients with T2-4a bladder cancer were randomized. Patients had a maximal transurethral resection and induction CRT to 40 Gy followed by cystoscopic assessment. Patients with a complete response (CR) received consolidation CRT to 64 Gy. Others were offered cystectomy and no further CRT. Adjuvant gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy was subsequently administered. The primary endpoint was the rate of distant metastasis at 3 years (DM3). Toxicity and other efficacy related endpoints including CR and bladder intact distant metastasis free survival at 3 years (BI-DMFS3) were also assessed. Using the Clopper-Pearson method, the study required 32 patients per arm, with a benchmark DM3 of 25% and a 1-sided significance level of 0.1. If both arms meet this benchmark, toxicity will be used to select a regimen for future study. This study was not designed to compare arms. Results: From 12/2008 to 4/2014, 70 patients were enrolled; 66 were eligible for analysis (33 per arm). Median follow-up was 4.3 years. DM3 was 22% and 16% for FCT and GD, respectively. BI-DMFS3 was 67% and 72%, respectively. CR rates were 88% and 78%, respectively. Of 33 patients in the FCT group, 32 (97%) completed induction, 27 (93%) completed induction and consolidation, and 18 (55%) completed the entire protocol. Of 33 patients in the GD group, these figures were 31 (94%), 23 (92%), and 16 (49%), respectively. Of 33 patients in the FCT group, 21 (64%) had grade 3-4 toxicity during protocol treatment with 18 (55%), 2 (6%) and 2 (6%) experiencing hematologic, GI and GU toxicity, respectively. For 33 patients in the GD group, these figures were 18 (55%) overall and 14 (43%), 3 (9%) and 2 (6%), respectively. Conclusions: Both regimens are promising, given DM3 rates < 25%. As there was less toxicity in the GD arm, it would be reasonable to consider a gemcitabine based option as well as a cisplatin based regimen for future trials. Daily radiation may be as effective as twice-daily radiation, which may broaden appeal. Clinical trial information: NCT00777491.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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