MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Survival outcomes associated with different palliative systemic therapies (PSTs) in patients with metastatic bladder cancer (mBC).

2020· article· en· W3007232749 on OpenAlexaff
Saba Vafaei‐Nodeh, Arshia Beigi, Longlong Huang, Gillian Mimmack, Shaun Zheng Sun, Jenny J. Ko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser ValleyBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineRegimenBladder cancerChemotherapyCarboplatinCancerGastroenterologyLog-rank testSurgeryCisplatinSurvival analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

450 Background: Cisplatin-based (Cis) chemotherapy (C) is considered standard first-line regimen for treating mBC. In individuals medically unfit for Cis, carboplatin-based (Cb) regimens may be considered. Alternative PSTs include immunotherapy (I) as first or second-line treatments. The purpose of this study is to investigate current trends and clinical outcomes of PSTs in patients with mBC. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients initially diagnosed with bladder cancer from Sep 2014 to Dec 2016 and had de novo or recurrent mBC. Kaplan-Meier method and Log-Rank test were used to compare survival outcomes among patients receiving different PSTs. Results: In 273 patients, 123 (45.1%) had de novo and 150 (54.9%) had recurrent disease. The median overall survivals (mOS) were 5.3 (95% CI: 3.7-8.2) and 6.5 months (95% CI 5.1-8.9), respectively (p=0.54). Patients received one of the following: C (23.1%), I (6.2%), C followed by I (C/I, 10.6%), and no treatment (NT, 60.1%). The mOS were 9.5 (95% CI: 7.1-12.5), 9.2 (95% CI: 6.1 - not estimable (NE)), 23.9 (95% CI: 16.30-NE), and 3.5 months (95% CI: 3.03-4.30), respectively. Each treatment group had a longer mOS than the NT group (p<0.01 in all three pairwise comparisons). Additionally, patients receiving C/I had a longer mOS than those receiving either C or I (p<0.001 and p=0.0497, respectively). The mOS were not statistically different between C vs I (p=0.2649). In patients receiving any C, 50.0% received Gemcitabine (G) plus Cis and 30.4% received G plus Cb. The mOS were 11.0 (95% CI: 8.7-19.7) and 14.4 months (95% CI:10.7-19.2), respectively, which were not significantly different (p=0.36). Conclusions: Despite the general preference for G plus Cis over Cb, this study showed that G plus Cb as a PST may be a comparable and efficacious treatment. While C currently remains the preferred initial line of PST, patients receiving I had similar survival outcomes to the C group despite many of the patients having Cis ineligibility. Real-world mOS of 2 years in patients who receive both C and I is unprecedented and indicates efficacy of PST. This study provides further evidence for immunotherapy as first or second-line regimen in treating mBC.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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