MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

FDG PET-CT imaging in assessing interim response to neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (NAC) in muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC): A prospective study.

2023· article· en· W4324136255 on OpenAlexaff
Srikala S. Sridhar, Nicholas Power, Rodney H. Breau, Susanna Y. Cheng, Gregory R. Pond, Peter Chung, Ur Metser, Mark N. Levine, Som D. Mukherjee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsOntario Clinical Oncology GroupHealth Sciences CentreJuravinski Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerGemcitabineCisplatinNeoadjuvant therapyChemotherapyVinblastineChemoradiotherapyRadiologyPositron emission tomographyProspective cohort studyInternal medicineOncologyNuclear medicineCancerUrologyBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

460 Background: Muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is an aggressive local disease where initial staging with conventional CT imaging is often suboptimal. To explore the role of PET-CT in both staging MIBC and assessing response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), we conducted a prospective multicentre, randomized trial known as PETMUSE. We report here the first results from the neoadjuvant substudy which assessed interim PET-CT response after 2-3 cycles of NAC and how this correlated with disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods: Patients with MIBC (T2a-4a, N0-3, M0) based on transurethral resection of their bladder tumor and CT staging were randomized 2:1 to PET-CT or no PET-CT. All PET-CT patients, receiving cisplatin-based NAC underwent a second PET-CT after 2 cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) or 3 cycles of dose dense methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, cisplatin (ddMVAC) to assess for interim response. Patients were scored (1-5) by 2 independent reviewers according to the extent of metabolic response on PET-CT. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were collected. Results: Between 2016 and 2021, 291 patients were enrolled on PETMUSE of which 46 participated in the neoadjuvant substudy. Median age was 68 (51-86); 36 (78%) were male; 26 were ECOG 0 (57%); 31 (68%) were T2, 13 (28%) were T3/T4; and 35 (76%) were node negative. In terms of NAC regimens: 22 (48%) received GC, 17 (37%) split dose GC, 6 (13%) ddMVAC, and 1 (2%) MVAC. On PET-CT, 23 (50%) had a complete metabolic response, 14 (30%) had a partial metabolic response, 5 (11%) had no change or mixed response and 4 (9%) had progressive disease or new lesion on PET scan. Metabolic response on PET-CT was a statistically significant prognostic factor for both DFS and OS (see Table). Conclusions: In MIBC patients receiving cisplatin-based NAC, metabolic response seen on interim PET-CT was correlated with DFS and OS. PET-CT warrants further study in this setting as a potential early indicator of response to NAC. Clinical trial information: NCT02462239 . [Table: see text][Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.396 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→