Oncological impact of cystoscopic findings in <scp>non‐muscle</scp> ‐invasive bladder cancer: a meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between cystoscopic findings and oncological outcomes in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) given that the oncological impact of quantity and quality assessment of tumours with cystoscopy has not been well verified. METHODS: Multiple databases were queried in May 2022 for studies investigating the association of oncological outcomes, such as recurrence-free (RFS), progression-free (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS), with cystoscopic findings, including multiplicity, size, and gross appearance of tumours in patients with NMIBC. RESULTS: Overall, 73 studies comprising 28 139 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. Tumour multiplicity was associated with worse RFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48-1.74) and PFS (pooled HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.18-1.76) in NMIBC patients (including both Ta and T1). Tumour size (≥3 cm) was associated with worse RFS (pooled HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.69-2.30) and PFS (pooled HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.52-2.15) in NMIBC patients. In patients with T1 bladder cancer (BCa), tumour multiplicity and size (≥3 cm) were also associated with worse RFS, PFS and CSS. By contrast, among patients treated with bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), tumour multiplicity was not associated with worse RFS, and tumour size (≥3 cm) was not associated with worse PFS. Sessile tumours were associated with worse RFS (pooled HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.52-3.01) and PFS (pooled HR 2.17, 95% CI 1.42-3.32) compared to pedunculated tumours. Compared to papillary tumours, solid tumours were associated with worse RFS (pooled HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.25-2.72) and PFS (pooled HR 3.06, 95% CI 2.31-4.07) in NMIBC patients, and CSS in T1 BCa patients (pooled HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.63-3.30). CONCLUSIONS: Cystoscopic findings, including tumour multiplicity, size, and gross appearance, strongly predict oncological outcomes in NMIBC patients. Cystoscopic visual features can help in the decision-making process regarding the timeliness and extent of tumour resection as well as future management such as intravesical therapy.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".