Trimodal therapy in muscle invasive bladder cancer management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Radical cystectomy (RC) is the current mainstay for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Concerns regarding morbidity, mortality and quality of life have favored the introduction of bladder sparing strategies. Trimodal therapy, combining transurethral resection, chemotherapy and radiotherapy is the current standard of care for bladder preservation strategies in selected patients with MIBC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive search of the Medline and Embase databases was performed. A total of 19 studies were included in a systematic review of bladder sparing strategies in MIBC management was carried out following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The overall median complete response rate after trimodal therapy (TMT) was 77% (55-93). Salvage cystectomy rate with TMT was 17% on average (8-30). For TMT, the 5-year cancer-specific survival and overall survival rates range from 42-82% and 32-74%, respectively. Currently data supporting neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy in bladder sparing approaches are emerging, but robust definitive conclusions are still lacking. Gastrointestinal toxicity rates are low around 4% (0.5-16), whereas genitourinary toxicity rates reached 8% (1-24). Quality of life outcomes are still underreported. CONCLUSIONS: Published data and clinical experience strongly support trimodal therapy as an acceptable bladder sparing strategy in terms of oncological outcomes and quality of life in selected patients with MIBC. A strong need exists for specialized centers, to increase awareness among urologists, to discuss these options with patients and to stress the increased participation of patients and their families in treatment path decision-making.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".