Divergent Biological Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: After cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), 60% of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) still have residual invasive disease at radical cystectomy. The NAC-induced biological alterations in these cisplatin-resistant tumors remain largely unstudied. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Radical cystectomy samples were available for gene expression analysis from 133 patients with residual invasive disease after cisplatin-based NAC, of whom 116 had matched pre-NAC samples. Unsupervised consensus clustering (CC) was performed and the consensus clusters were investigated for their biological and clinical characteristics. Hematoxylin & Eosin and IHC on tissue microarrays were used to confirm tissue sampling and gene expression analysis. RESULTS: Established molecular subtyping models proved to be inconsistent in their classification of the post-NAC samples. Unsupervised CC revealed four distinct consensus clusters. The CC1-Basal and CC2-Luminal subtypes expressed genes consistent with a basal and a luminal phenotype, respectively, and were similar to the corresponding established pretreatment molecular subtypes. The CC3-Immune subtype had the highest immune activity, including T-cell infiltration and checkpoint molecule expression, but lacked both basal and luminal markers. The CC4-Scar-like subtype expressed genes associated with wound healing/scarring, although the proportion of tumor cell content in this subtype did not differ from the other subtypes. Patients with CC4-Scar-like tumors had the most favorable prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study expands our knowledge on MIBC not responding to cisplatin by suggesting molecular subtypes to understand the biology of these tumors. Although these molecular subtypes imply consequences for adjuvant treatments, this ultimately needs to be tested in clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".