MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2901236948 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.5555

Segmental ureterectomy can be performed safely in patients with urothelial carcinoma of distal ureter

2018· article· en· W2901236948 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhuo Jia, Yanqing Gong, Cuijian Zhang, Zhengqing Bao, Xuesong Li, Han Hao, Gengyan Xiong, Lei Zhang, Dong Fang, Zhisong He, Liqun Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioUrologyUreterProportional hazards modelUrothelial carcinomaT-stageRetrospective cohort studyStage (stratigraphy)Ureteral neoplasmConfidence intervalCarcinomaCohortSurgeryOverall survivalInternal medicineCancerTransitional cell carcinomaBladder cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to compare oncological outcomes by surgery type (segmental ureterectomy [SU] vs. radical nephroureterectomy [RNU]) in a large cohort of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) of the distal ureter. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 219 patients with UTUC of the distal ureter among 931 patients with UTUC who underwent SU and RNU. Clinicopathological outcomes were evaluated. Cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (RFS), intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRFS), contralateral recurrence-free survival, and distal metastasis-free survival were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression, estimating hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 179 (81.7%) patients underwent RNU and 40 (18.3%) underwent SU: 85 males (47.5%) with RNU and 17 (42.5%) with SU (p=0.568). The median age with RNU and SU was 71 years (range 31-86) and 70 years (range 46-90), respectively (p=0.499). The T stage of the two groups did not differ (p=0.122), nor did mean tumour length (3.35±2.62 vs. 3.25±2.14; p=0.953), grade (p=0.075), tumour necrosis (p=0.634), or followup time (months) (58.1±8.1 vs. 63.7±3.4; p=0.462). The two groups did not differ in CSS (p=0.358) or OS (p=0.206), and surgery type did not predict CSS (HR 0.862; 95% CI 0.469-1.585; p=0.633) or OS (HR 0.764; 95% CI 0.419-1.392; p=0.379). Local RFS was higher with RNU than SU (96.2% vs. 86.0%; p=0.02), but the groups did not differ in IVRFS (p=0.661), contralateral RFS (p=0.183), or distant metastasis-free survival (p=0.078). On multivariate analysis, SU was associated with local RFS (HR 5.069; 95% CI 1.029-24.968; p=0.046) and distant metastasis-free survival (HR 6.497; 95% CI 1.196-35.283; p=0.03). Local RFS was lower with SU than RNU for patients with pT3-4 stage (p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term oncological outcomes were equivalent with SU and RNU in patients with UTUC of the distal ureter. SU affected local recurrence survival, especially with advanced tumour stage, and distant metastasis survival.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→