A Randomized Trial of PHOTOdynamic Surgery in Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recurrence of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is common after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). Photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) provides better diagnostic accuracy and more complete tumor resection and may reduce recurrence. However, there is limited evidence on the longer-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PDD-guided resection. METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group randomized trial conducted in 22 U.K. National Health Service hospitals, we recruited participants with a suspected first diagnosis of NMIBC at intermediate or high risk for recurrence on the basis of routine visual assessment before being listed for TURBT. Participants were assigned (1:1) to PDD-guided TURBT or to standard white light (WL)–guided TURBT. The primary clinical outcome was time to recurrence at 3 years of follow-up, analyzed by modified intention to treat. RESULTS: A total of 538 participants were enrolled (269 in each group), and 112 participants without histologic confirmation of NMIBC or who had had cystectomy were excluded. After 44 months’ median follow-up, 86 of 209 in the PDD group and 84 of 217 in the WL group had recurrences. The hazard ratio for recurrence was 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.28; P=0.70). Three-year recurrence-free rates were 57.8% (95% CI, 50.7 to 64.2) and 61.6% (95% CI, 54.7 to 67.8) in the PDD and WL groups, respectively, with an absolute difference of −3.8 percentage points (95% CI, −13.37 to 5.59) favoring PDD. Adverse events occurred in less than 2% of participants, and rates were similar in both groups, as was health-related quality of life. PDD-guided TURBT was £876 (95% CI, −766 to 2518; P=0.591) more costly than WL-guided TURBT over a 3-year follow-up, with no evidence of a difference in quality-adjusted life years (−0.007; 95% CI, −0.133 to 0.119; P=0.444). CONCLUSIONS: PDD-guided TURBT did not reduce recurrence rates, nor was it cost-effective compared with WL at 3 years. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment program; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN84013636.)
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".