Safety of three sequential whole bladder photodynamic therapy (WBPDT) treatments in the management of resistant bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: WBPDT has been used to treat resistant superficial bladder cancer, with clinical benefits and associated dose-dependent side effects. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the safety of three sequential WBPDT treatments in patients with resistant non-muscle invasive (NMI) bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 12 males and one female provided written informed consent in this Phase II study. Each patient received intravenous injection of Photofrin® (AXCAN Parma Inc, Canada) at 1.5 mg/kg two days prior to whole bladder laser (630nm) treatment. Assessment of safety and efficacy included weekly urinary symptoms; cystoscopy, biopsy and cytology; and measurement of bladder volume quarterly after each treatment at baseline, six and 12 months. Treatment #2 and/or #3 occurred only in the absence of bladder contracture, and/or disease progression. RESULTS: 13 patients: 12 males and one female have been enrolled and average age of enrollees is 67.1(52 - 87) years. Four patients had Ta-T1/Grade I-III tumors; two patients had CIS associated with T1/GI-III; and seven patients had carcinoma in situ (CIS) only. Three patients received 3/3 treatments, and are evaluable for toxicity; three patients received two treatments only; and seven patients received one treatment only. There was no bladder contracture; transient mild to moderate bladder irritative voiding symptoms of dysuria, urinary frequency, nocturia and urgency occurred in all patients. The three evaluable patients were without evidence of disease at average of 13.1 (7-20) months. CONCLUSION: Three sequential WBPDT treatments might have a favorable toxicity profile in the management of recurrent/ refractory non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".