Genitourinary (GU) small cell carcinoma (SCC): A retrospective review of treatment and survival patterns at the Ottawa Regional Cancer Center (ORCC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4545 Background: SCC of the bladder (SCCB), prostate (SCCP), and kidney (SCCK) remains a therapeutic challenge. Much debate exists in the literature about the ideal course of therapy. Methods: All charts of all patients seen at the ORCC between 1991–2002 for any GU diagnosis were manually reviewed to identify GUSCC. Demographic, staging, treatment and outcome data was extracted. The Veterans Administration small cell lung cancer classification of limited and extensive disease was adapted to the genitourinary system(limited:disease localized to the true and false pelvis, extensive:disease beyond the pelvis). Results: 555, 858 and 5066 new cases of primary renal, bladder and prostate cancer respectively, were identified. Of these cases, 22 patients were GUSCC: 12 SCCB, 10 SCCP and no SCCK. 8/12 SCCB had limited disease. 5 patients with SCCB are alive and were all limited at diagnosis. Surviving patients received similar therapy with transurethral resection of the bladder tumor, platinum chemotherapy, etoposide (4–6 cycles), and radical radiotherapy (56–60 Gray). All cases of SCCP have died. 2/10 had limited stage. Of these two patients one was treated with platinum chemotherapy and etoposide followed by radical radiotherapy (66 Gray), the other patient had a poor performance status at diagnosis and was treated with palliative hormonal ablation and radiotherapy. Our table illustrates the median survival according to site and stage (SCCB and SCCP combined) at diagnosis. Conclusions: Our findings support that GU SCC is an aggressive cancer. We have found that limited stage SCCB and SCCP, when treated with platinum/etoposide chemotherapy along with radical radiotherapy tends to have a more favourable outcome than that of extensive GUSCC. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".