MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207089250 · doi:10.1111/bju.15622

Oncological benefit of re‐resection for T1 bladder cancer: a comparative effectiveness study

2021· article· en· W3207089250 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marian S. Wettstein, Nancy N. Baxter, Rinku Sutradhar, Muhammad Mamdani, Pham Song, Syed R. Qadri, Kathy Li, Ning Liu, Theodorus van der Kwast, Thomas Hermanns, Girish S. Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersSwiss Cancer Research FoundationUniscientia FoundationOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInterquartile rangeConfoundingProportional hazards modelBladder cancerConfidence intervalRetrospective cohort studyPopulationCohort studyResectionCancerInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the real-world survival benefit of re-resection vs no re-resection in patients diagnosed with T1 bladder cancer (BC) at the population level. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective population-wide observational cohort study based on pathology reports linked to health administrative data. We identified patients who were diagnosed with T1 BC in the province of Ontario (01/2001-12/2015) and used billing claims to ascertain whether they received re-resection within 2-10 weeks. The time-dependent effect of re-resection on survival outcomes was modelled by Cox proportional hazards regression (unadjusted and adjusted for numerous assumed patient- and surgeon-level confounding variables). Effect measures were presented as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We identified 7666 patients of which 2162 (28.7%) underwent re-resection after a median (interquartile range) time of 45 (35-56) days. Patients who received re-resection were less likely to die from any causes (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.63-0.74, P < 0.001) and from BC (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76, P < 0.001) during any time of follow-up. After adjusting for all assumed confounding variables, re-resection was still significantly associated with a lower overall mortality (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.95, P < 0.001), while the association with cancer-specific survival marginally lost its statistical significance (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-1.02, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: A second transurethral resection within 2-6 weeks after the initial resection (i.e. re-resection) is recommended for patients diagnosed with primary T1 BC as prior studies suggest therapeutic, diagnostic, and prognostic benefits. However, results on survival endpoints are sparse, conflicting, and often affected by various biases. To the best of our knowledge, the present population-wide study represents the largest cohort of patients diagnosed with T1 BC and provides real-world evidence supporting the utilisation of re-resection in this group of patients.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207