Active surveillance for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: fallacy or opportunity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to analyze the current place of active surveillance (AS) in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). RECENT FINDINGS: A growing body of evidence suggests that AS protocols for pTa low-grade (TaLG) NMIBC are safe and feasible. However, current guidelines have not implemented AS due to a lack of high-quality data. Available studies included pTa tumors, with only one study excluding pT1-NMIBC. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were heterogeneously defined based on tumor volume, number of tumors, carcinoma in situ (CIS), or high-grade (HG) NMIBC. Tumor volume <10 mm and <5 lesions were used as cut-offs. Positive urinary cytology (UC) or cancer-related symptoms precluded inclusion. Surveillance within the first year consisted of quarterly cystoscopy. AS stopped upon the presence of cancer-related symptoms, change in tumor morphology, positive UC, or patient's request. With a median time on AS of 16 months, two-thirds of the patients failed AS. Progression to muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) was rare and occurred only in patients with pT1-NIMBC at inclusion. SUMMARY: AS in NMIBC is an attractive concept in the era of personalized medicine, but strong evidence is still awaited. A more precise definition of patient inclusion, follow-up, and failure criteria is required to improve its implementation in daily clinical practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".