Prognostic blood-based biomarkers in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present systematic review aimed to identify prognostic values of blood-based biomarkers in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched in August 2020 according to the PRISMA statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they compared oncological outcomes in patients treated with NAC for UCB with and without pretreatment laboratory abnormalities. RESULTS: Overall, ten studies, including 966 patients who underwent NAC, met our eligibility criteria. Six studies provided data on pretreatment neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) with contradicting results on its association with pathologic response (PR) and complete pathologic response (pCR); some studies reported a strong association between a high level of pretreatment NLR and worse survival outcomes. Two studies reported that higher pretreatment platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) is associated with a lower likelihood of achieving PR and/or pCR, while lymphocyte count alone had the opposite association. One study reported a negative association between pretreatment blood-based myeloid-derived suppressors cells and pCR. Patients who experienced a remission have been reported to have higher level of lymphocyte subsets (CD3+, CD4+, CD57+ cells, the ratio of CD4+/CD8+) compared to those who had progression. One study found that low pretreatment blood-based human chorionic gonadotrophin b subunit (hCGβ) was associated with improved overall survival (OS). High levels of epithelial tumor markers (CA-125, CA 19-9) were also associated with worse OS and recurrence-free survival in the NAC setting. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that several readily available, easy measurable blood-based biomarkers hold promise to improve our selection of UCB patients who are likely benefit from NAC. However, their role as an adjunct to established histopathologic characteristics for clinical decision-making requires further validation along the biomarker phased approach.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".