Outcomes of trimodality bladder-sparing therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although radical cystectomy is considered the standard of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), recent data has suggested comparable survival outcomes for bladder-sparing trimodality therapy (TMT). We conducted a retrospective, single-institution analysis of MIBC patients to evaluate the efficacy of TMT as an alternative, curative approach to surgical intervention. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of MIBC patients assessed by a multidisciplinary team at the Juravinski Cancer Centre from 2010-2016. Patients underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) followed by radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy. Patients could receive neoadjuvant treatment. Clinical data and response rates were summarized, and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Our analytic cohort included 115 patients, of whom 53 underwent TMT and 62 underwent radiotherapy alone following TURBT. Median age at diagnosis was 79 years and median followup was 21 months. Complete response rates in those receiving TMT and radiation without chemotherapy were 84.4% and 66.7%, respectively. For TMT patients, three-year OS and DFS were 68.5% and 49.6%, respectively. Patients who received TMT had reduction in risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49; p=0.026) and disease recurrence (HR 0.55; p=0.017) compared to those who had radiation without chemotherapy. Overall, four patients had grade 3 or higher late toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-institution analysis, TMT appears to be a safe and effective approach in the short-term management of MIBC in appropriately selected patients. Extended followup and analysis are necessary to validate these results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".