MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360966436 · doi:10.1016/j.euros.2023.02.014

Carboplatin Induction Chemotherapy in Clinically Lymph Node–positive Bladder Cancer

2023· article· en· W4360966436 on OpenAlexaff
Markus von Deimling, Laura S. Mertens, Bas W.G. van Rhijn, Yair Lotan, Philippe E. Spiess, Siamak Daneshmand, Peter C. Black, Maximilian Pallauf, David D’Andrea, Marco Moschini, Francesco Soria, Francesco Del Giudice, Luca Afferi, Ekaterina Laukhtina, Takafumi Yanagisawa, Tatsushi Kawada, Jeremy Yuen‐Chun Teoh, Mohammad Abufaraj, Guillaume Ploussard, M. Roumiguié, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Marko Babjuk, Paolo Gontero, Évanguelos Xylinas, Michael Rink, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Benjamin Pradere

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Open Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJanssen PharmaceuticalsAstellas Pharma US
KeywordsCarboplatinGemcitabineMedicineInternal medicineOncologyCystectomyCisplatinBladder cancerRegimenUrologyChemotherapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are currently no guideline recommendations regarding the treatment of cisplatin-ineligible, clinically lymph node–positive (cN+) bladder cancer (BCa). To investigate the oncological efficacy of gemcitabine/carboplatin induction chemotherapy (IC) in comparison to cisplatin-based regimens in cN+ BCa. This was an observational study of 369 patients with cT2–4 N1–3 M0 BCa. IC followed by consolidative radical cystectomy (RC). The primary endpoints were the pathological objective response (pOR; ypT0/Ta/Tis/T1 N0) rate and the pathological complete response (pCR; ypT0N0) rate. We applied 3:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to reduce selection bias. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared across groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. Associations between the treatment regimen and survival endpoints were tested in multivariable Cox regression analyses. After PSM, a cohort of 216 patients was available for analysis, of whom 162 received cisplatin-based IC and 54 gemcitabine/carboplatin IC. At RC, 54 patients (25%) had a pOR and 36 (17%) had a pCR. The 2-yr CSS was 59.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51.9–69%) for patients who received cisplatin-based IC versus 38.8% (95% CI 26–57.9%) for those who received gemcitabine/carboplatin. For the pOR (p = 0.8), ypN0 status at RC (p = 0.5), and cN1 BCa subgroups (p = 0.7), there was no difference in CSS between cisplatin-based IC and gemcitabine/carboplatin. In the cN1 subgroup, treatment with gemcitabine/carboplatin was not associated with shorter OS (p = 0.2) or CSS (p = 0.1) on multivariable Cox regression analysis. Cisplatin-based IC seems to be superior to gemcitabine/carboplatin and should be the standard for cisplatin-eligible patients with cN+ BCa. Gemcitabine/carboplatin may be an alternative treatment for selected cisplatin-ineligible patients with cN+ BCa. In particular, selected cisplatin-ineligible patients with cN1 disease may benefit from gemcitabine/carboplatin IC. In this multicenter study, we found that selected patients with bladder cancer and clinical evidence of lymph node metastasis who cannot receive standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy before surgery to remove their bladder may benefit from chemotherapy with gemcitabine/carboplatin. Patients with a single lymph node metastasis may benefit the most.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Urology Open ScienceSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207