MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385192323 · doi:10.1016/j.euf.2023.07.002

Repeat Transurethral Resection for Non–muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in the Contemporary Era

2023· review· en· W4385192323 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Focus · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersEuropean Association of Urology
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerContext (archaeology)Meta-analysisConfoundingConfidence intervalGuidelineResectionOncologyInternal medicineUrologyCancerSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Repeat transurethral resection (reTUR) is a guideline-recommended treatment strategy in high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients treated with transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT); however, the impact of recent procedural/technological developments on reTUR outcomes has not been assessed yet. OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of reTUR for NMIBC in the contemporary era, focusing on whether temporal differences and technical advancement, specifically, photodynamic diagnosis and en bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT), affect the outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Multiple databases were queried in February 2023 for studies investigating reTUR outcomes, such as residual tumor and/or upstaging rates, its predictive factors, and oncologic outcomes, including recurrence-free (RFS), progression-free (PFS), cancer-specific (CSS), and overall (OS) survival. We synthesized comparative outcomes adjusting for the effect of possible confounders. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 81 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. In T1 patients initially treated with conventional TURBT (cTURBT) in the 2010s, the pooled rates of any residual tumors and upstaging on reTUR were 31.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.0-37.2%) and 2.8% (95% CI: 2.0-3.8%), respectively. Despite a potential publication bias, these rates were significantly lower than those in patients treated in the 1990-2000s (both p < 0.001). ERBT and visual enhancement-guided cTURBT significantly improved any residual tumor rates on reTUR compared with cTURBT based on both matched-cohort and multivariable analyses. Among studies adjusting for the effect of possible confounders, patients who underwent reTUR had better RFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.97) and OS (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.93) than those who did not, while it did not lead to superior PFS (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.47-1.15) and CSS (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: reTUR is currently recommended for high-risk NMIBC based on the persistent high rates of residual tumors after primary resection. Improvement of resection quality based on checklist applications and recent technical/procedural advancements hold the promise to omit reTUR. PATIENT SUMMARY: Recent endoscopic/procedural developments improve the outcomes of repeat resection for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Further investigations are urgently needed to clarify the potential impact of the use of these techniques on the need for repeat transurethral resection in the contemporary era.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.237 · 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