AB0 blood groups and oncological and functional outcomes in bladder cancer patients treated with radical cystectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We investigated AB0 blood groups prevalence according to preoperative and pathological tumor characteristics, and their association with oncological outcomes, and renal function decline in a contemporary large cohort of bladder cancer (BCa) patients, who underwent radical cystectomy (RC) at a tertiary referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data of patients with histologically confirmed and clinically non metastatic BCa, who underwent RC between 2014 and 2021 at our Institution. Kaplan-Meier (KM) plots and Cox regression (CR) models tested the relationship between AB0 blood groups and local recurrence-, metastasis-, cancer specific mortality-, and overall mortality-free survival. Logistic regression (LR) models tested the association between AB0 blood groups and renal function decline, defined as an estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min, at post-operative day 1, discharge and 6- months of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 301 included patients, 128 (42.5%) had group A, 126 (41.9%) had group 0, 28 (9.3%) had group B, and 19 (6.3%) had group AB. Patients with group 0 developed higher rates of muscle- invasive BCa (p = 0.028) with high-grade features (p = 0.005) at last bladder resection, and less frequently received preoperative immunotherapy with Bacillus of Calmette-Guerin (p = 0.044), than their non-0 counterparts. Additionally, these patients harbored more advanced pathologic tumor stage at RC (p = 0.024). KM plots showed no differences among all tested cancer control outcomes between AB0 blood groups (p > 0.05 in all cases). Patients with group AB presented the lowest median eGFR at each time point. In multivariable LR analyses addressing renal function decline, group AB was independently associated with eGFR< 60 mL/min at discharge (Odds Ratio: 4.28, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Among AB0 blood groups, patients with group 0 exhibited the most aggressive tumor profile. However, no differences were recorded in recurrence or survival rates. Group AB independently predicted renal function decline at discharge.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".