MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The prognostic impact of bone metastasis in urothelial carcinoma treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

2021· article· en· W3134226198 on OpenAlexaff
Husam Alqaisi, Zachary Veitch, Carlos Stecca, Jeenan Kaiser, Scott North, Sunil Samnani, Nimira Alimohamed, Srikala S. Sridhar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBaker Hughes (Canada)University Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetastatic Urothelial CarcinomaInternal medicineOncologyChemotherapyProportional hazards modelUnivariate analysisBone metastasisProgression-free survivalCancerProgressive diseaseNomogramMetastasisMultivariate analysisBladder cancerUrothelial carcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

415 Background: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is an aggressive disease with a median overall survival (OS) of ≈ 15 months. In the first-line setting, key prognostic factors include ECOG performance status, white blood cell count, and response to treatment per the Galsky nomogram. Bone metastases (BM) in mUC are associated with morbidity and mortality but are grouped with visceral disease; hence, their impact on prognosis is not well established. We aimed to assess the survival impact of BM in mUC patients treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC). Methods: A retrospective collection of patient and tumor characteristics, with clinical response to treatment (complete response [CR], partial response [PR]; stable disease [SD] or progressive disease [PD]) for patients treated at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, and Cross Cancer Institute from 2005-2018 was performed. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate (UVA) followed by multivariate analysis (MVA) of patient variables [Cox] using PFS and OS was performed. Results: Overall 376 mUC patients were included; 222 (59%) had soft-tissue metastases (STM) only, 70 (19%) had bone-only metastases, and 84 (22%) had both STM and BM. Overall, 35% had PR or CR, 19% had SD, and 39% had PD (7%: unknown response). The median PFS and OS for the whole cohort were 5.6 months (95%CI: 4.8-6.4) and 9.7 months (95% CI: 8.8-10.8) respectively. Select UVA by metastatic site showed inferior PFS for bone-only (p=0.03) and combination STM and BM (p=0.017). Only combination STM and BM were significant on UVA for OS (p=0.002). MVA showed that bone-only metastases (p=0.03) and ECOG 3-4 (p<0.0001) were associated with worse PFS (Table). Predictors of worse OS were the combination of STM and BM (p=0.02), ECOG 3-4 (p=0.001), and WBCs ≥ULN (p=0.02), (Table). Conclusions: BM are a significant predictor of worse outcomes for mUC patients treated with first-line PBC. Consideration as a treatment stratification factor for future studies is suggested. Strategies for the treatment of mUC patients with BM (ie: bone targeted agents) in the first-line setting should be addressed in future trials. [Table: see text]

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.347 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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