Concomitant Bladder Tumor Is a Risk Factor for Bladder Recurrence but Not Upper Tract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of UTUC patients with or without concurrent bladder tumor. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourology Society-Urothelial Carcinomas of the Upper Tract (CROES-UTUC) Registry included 1134 UTUC patients with or without concurrent bladder tumor treated between 2014 and 2019. Results: In 218 (19.2%) cases, concurrent bladder tumor was present, while in 916 (80.8%) patients, no bladder cancer was found. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, concomitant bladder tumor (hazard ratio (HR) 1.562, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.954–2.560, p = 0.076) indicated a trend associated with recurrence-free survival for UTUC. Further data dissection confirmed that concomitant bladder tumor is a risk factor of bladder recurrence (HR 1.874, 95% CI 1.104–3.183, p = 0.020) but not UTUC recurrence (HR 0.876, 95% CI 0.292–2.625, p = 0.812). Kidney-sparing surgery (KSS) (HR 3.940, 95% CI 1.352–11.486, p = 0.012), pathological T staging ≥ pT2 (HR 2.840, 95% 1.039–7.763, p = 0.042) were significantly associated with UTUC recurrence. KSS does not affect bladder recurrence (HR 0.619, 95% CI 0.242–1.580, p = 0.315). A limitation is the retrospective nature of the present study analysis. Conclusions: The presence of concomitant bladder tumor does not increase risk of UTUC recurrence, but it results in an increased risk of bladder recurrence. KSS does not affect bladder recurrence and can still be considered in patients with concomitant bladder tumor.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".