MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226415896

Treatment Outcomes of High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (HR-NMIBC) in Real-World Evidence (RWE) Studies: Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

2022· review· en· W4226415896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mihaela Georgiana Musat, C.S. Kwon, Elizabeth T. Masters, Slaven Sikirica, Debduth B Pijush, Anna Forsythe

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerSystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicinePopulationOncologyCancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mihaela Georgiana Musat,1 Christina Soeun Kwon,1 Elizabeth Masters,2 Slaven Sikirica,3 Debduth B Pijush,3 Anna Forsythe4 1Evidence Generation, Purple Squirrel Economics, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Cytel, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA; 2Real World Evidence, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA; 3Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA; 4Value and Access, Purple Squirrel Economics, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Cytel, Inc., Waltham, MA, USACorrespondence: Mihaela Georgiana MusatPurple Squirrel Economics, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Cytel, Inc, 1050 Winter Street, Waltham, MA, 02451, USAEmail mihaela.musat@pshta.comBackground: To date, there has been limited synthesis of RWE studies in high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HR-NMIBC). The objective of this research was to conduct a systematic review of published real-world evidence to better understand the real-world burden and treatment patterns in HR-NMIBC.Methods: An SLR was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with the scope defined by the Population, Intervention Comparators, Outcomes, and Study design (PICOS) criteria. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases (Jan 2015–Jul 2020) were searched, and relevant congress abstracts (Jan 2018–Jul 2020) identified. The final analysis only included studies that enrolled ≥ 100 patients with HR-NMIBC from the US, Europe, Canada, and Australia.Results: The SLR identified 634 RWE publications in NMIBC, of which 160 studies reported data in HR-NMIBC. The average age of patients in the studies was 71 years, and 79% were males. The rates of BCG intravesical instillations ranged from 3% to 86% (29– 95% for induction and 8– 83% for maintenance treatment). Five-year outcomes were 17– 89% recurrence-free survival (longest survival in patients completing BCG maintenance), 58– 89% progression-free survival, 71– 96% cancer-specific survival (lowest survival in BCG-unresponsive patients), and 28– 90% overall survival (lowest survival in patients who did not receive BCG or instillation therapy).Conclusion: BCG treatment rates and survival outcomes in patients with HR-NMIBC vary in the real world, with better survival seen in patients completing maintenance BCG, responding to treatment, and not progressing to muscle-invasive disease. There is a need to better understand the factors associated with BCG use and discontinuation and for an effective treatment that improves outcomes in HR-NMIBC. Generalization of these results is limited by variations in data collection, reporting, and methodologies used across RWE studies.Keywords: real-world outcomes, high-risk NMIBC

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.012
Bibliometrics0.0160.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.408
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207