ABO Blood Group and Rhesus Factor Are Not Associated with Outcomes After Radical Cystectomy for Non-metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the role of ABO blood group and Rhesus factor as a predictor of outcome in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) for non-metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of 463 consecutive patients treated with RC between 1988 and 2003 were retrospectively analyzed. The effect on recurrence-free survival, and cancer-specific and overall mortality were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression methods. RESULTS: Overall, 185 (41.3%), 190 (42.4%), 46 (10.3%) and 27 (6%) patients expressed O, A, B and AB phenotypes, respectively; 65 (14.5%) were Rhesus-negative. Median follow-up was 14.2 years (interquartile range=10.2-17.1 years). No individual blood group was associated with any clinicopathological characteristics whereas Rhesus-positive patients had a higher rate of pT4 disease (11% vs. 22%; p=0.02). ABO blood groups were not associated with outcomes. Rhesus-positive patients had an increased risk of shorter recurrence-free survival, and of cancer-specific and overall mortality compared to Rhesus-negative patients (all p<0.03). In multivariable analyses that adjusted for the effects of standard characteristics, this association disappeared. CONCLUSION: The results of our study showed that neither ABO blood group nor Rhesus factor are associated with oncological outcomes. The clinical relevance of blood groups and Rhesus factor in bladder cancer remains questionable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".