MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Multi-institutional matched comparison of radical cystectomy to trimodality therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

2022· article· en· W4213275011 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexandre R. Zlotta, Leslie Ballas, Andrzej Niemierko, Katherine Lajkosz, Cynthia Kuk, Gus Miranda, Michael Drumm, Andrea Mari, Neil Fleshner, Girish S. Kulkarni, Peter Chung, Robert G. Bristow, Srikala S. Sridhar, Adam S. Feldman, Matthew Wszolek, Richard J. Lee, Anthony L. Zietman, William U. Shipley, Siamak Daneshmand, Jason A. Efstathiou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreSinai Health SystemUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyBladder cancerProportional hazards modelClinical endpointOncologyUrologyStage (stratigraphy)Randomized controlled trialInternal medicineSurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

433 Background: Prior randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing bladder preservation to radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) closed early due to lack of accrual. Given that no future RCTs are foreseen, and in the absence of level 1 data, we aimed to provide the best evidence possible on outcomes of matched cohorts comparing trimodality therapy (TMT, maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumor followed by concurrent chemoradiation) to RC in order to guide management. Methods: This retrospective analysis included 703 patients with MIBC clinical stage T2-T3/4aN0M0 MIBC urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, 421 RC and 282 TMT who would have been eligible for both TMT or RC, treated at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto; and University of Southern California, Los Angeles between 2005-2017. To compare homogeneous cohorts, all patients included in this analysis had solitary tumors < 7 cm, no or unilateral hydronephrosis, and no multifocal carcinoma in situ. Treatment propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression, and patients were matched 3:1 with replacement. Covariates included age, sex, clinical T stage, hydronephrosis, (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, body mass index, smoking history, and ECOG status. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with adjusted Cox models; cancer-specific survival (CSS), distant failure-free survival, pelvic nodal failure-free survival and metastasis-free survival (combined distant and pelvic nodal failure) were estimated with adjusted competing risk models. Our primary endpoint of interest was metastasis-free survival. The analysis was performed as intent-to-treat. Results: The 3:1 matched cohort comprised of 1,116 patients (834 RC vs 282 TMT). After matching, age (71.3 vs 71.6), cT2 clinical stage (88 vs 90%), presence of hydronephrosis (12 vs 10%), and use of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (60 vs 65%) were similar between RC and TMT cohorts. Salvage cystectomy was performed in 38 patients (13%) treated by TMT. At 5 years, metastasis-free (73 vs 78%, p = 0.07), distant failure-free (78 vs 82%, p = 0.14), and pelvic nodal failure-free (96 vs 94%, p = 0.33) survival were not statistically different between RC and TMT, whereas CSS and OS favored TMT (78 vs 85%, p = 0.02; 70 vs 78%, p < 0.001). Outcomes for RC and TMT were not different among centers. Final pT stage in the RC patients was: pT0 14%, pT1 7%, pT2 29%, pT3/4 42% and N+ 24%. Peri RC mortality was 2.1% and median number of nodes removed was 40. NMIBC recurrence occurred in 57/278 (20.5%) TMT patients. Conclusions: This large multi-institutional contemporary study provides the best evidence to date, in the absence of randomized trials, supporting TMT for select patients with MIBC. Oncologic outcomes seem to be equivalent between TMT and RC, affirming the position that TMT should be offered as an effective alternative.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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