Repeat Transurethral Resection of Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer Prior to Radical Cystectomy is Prognostic but Not Therapeutic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the impact of repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumor prior to radical cystectomy on oncologic outcomes in a contemporary cohort at a tertiary care center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An Institutional Review Board approved review of 657 patients diagnosed with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who underwent radical cystectomy at our institution for clinical stage T2 urothelial carcinoma between 2005 and 2017 was performed. Patients with and without repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumor were matched 1-to-1 by propensity score. Matching was done by age, gender, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, preoperative hydronephrosis, variant histology, lymphovascular invasion, or carcinoma in situ on index transurethral resection of bladder tumor. RESULTS: = .001, respectively). Notably, more than 60% of patients who were pT0 on repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumor had residual disease at the time of radical cystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumor prior to radical cystectomy, irrespective of receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, was not associated with improved survival outcomes in this propensity score matched muscle-invasive bladder cancer cohort. The absence of residual tumor on pathological evaluation of repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumor specimen was prognostic and was associated with improved survival outcomes. However, a large percentage of patients with pT0 disease on repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumor had residual disease on radical cystectomy pathology.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".