Small cell carcinoma of the bladder: A population-based analysis of long-term outcomes after radical cystectomy and bladder conservation with chemoradiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to describe the oncological outcomes after radical cystectomy and chemo-radiation for localized small cell bladder cancer (SCBC). METHODS: This population-based analysis of localized SCBC from 1985-2018 in British Columbia included an analysis (analysis 1) of cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of patients treated with curative-intent radical cystectomy (RC) and radiation (RT), and an analysis (analysis 2) of CSS and OS in patients treated with RC and chemoRT consistent with the SCBC Canadian consensus guideline. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients who were treated with curative intent were identified: 33 patients had RC and 44 had RT. For analysis 1, five-year OS was 29% and 39% for RC and RT, respectively (p=0.51), and five-year CSS was 35% and 52% for RC and RT, respectively (p=0.29). On multivariable analysis, higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and the lack of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) were associated with worse OS, while higher CCI and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) were associated with worse CSS. For analysis 2, five-year OS was 56% and 58% for the RC and chemoRT groups, respectively (p=0.90), and five-year CSS was 56% for RC and 71% for chemoRT (p=0.71). Four of 42 (9.5%) chemoRT patients had RC at relapse. CONCLUSIONS: SCBC is a rare entity with a poor prognosis. RC and chemoRT offer similar CSS and OS for localized SCBC, even when focusing the analysis on patients treated according to the modern consensus guidelines. NAC should be considered for eligible patients. Both chemoRT and RC treatment options should be discussed with patients with SCBC.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".