Check Cystoscopy Follow-up Practice for Low-Risk (pTa) Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To identify the best practice policy and guideline for surveillance with check cystoscopies follow up for low-risk pTa urothelial bladder tumour and to identify the recurrence rate and the progression rate of low-risk urothelial bladder tumour and how safe is it to discharge them at 1- versus 5-years of follow up. Objectives: To identify the best practice policy and guideline for surveillance with check cystoscopies follow up for low-risk pTa urothelial bladder tumour and to identify the recurrence rate and the progression rate of low-risk urothelial bladder tumour and how safe is it to discharge them at 1- versus 5-years of follow up. Secondary outcome: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a reduced follow-up scheme, if this is deemed a safe practice to follow. Methodology: It is a single centre, retrospective review of all low-risk NMIBC patients diagnosed with low-risk bladder tumors at our Trust between 2012 and 2014 from our local urological cancer multi-disciplinary team (MDT) registry and ensured a 5-year time-lapse from diagnosis. Histology grade and staging from the first TURBT, receiving of mitomycin within 24 hrs following the initial TURBT, the timing of cystoscopy follow-up, cystoscopy findings (evidence of recurrence), further procedures (bladder biopsy, fulguration or TURBT), histology of further procedures, recurrence rate and time from the first TURBT to discharge to primary care are reviewed and analysed. Result: Our initial review revealed a high likelihood of recurrence (33.9%) in the low-risk NMIBC patients after 12 months of being cancer free. It also demonstrated that there is further progression in (23.8%) of those who had a later recurrence despite being asymptomatic. Conclusion: We would recommend a 5-year follow-up surveillance and further national collaboration to audit this patient subgroup to define a safe period of cystoscopic follow-up for these patients and bring further evidence for NICE to build up their recommendations.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".