MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Reasons for refusal of or ineligibility for radical cystectomy (RC) in patients (Pts) with bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)–unresponsive high-risk non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (HR NMIBC) from the SunRISe-1 study.

2024· article· en· W4391303451 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph M Jacob, Félix Guerrero‐Ramos, Évanguelos Xylinas, Giuseppe Simone, Yair Lotan, Christopher Pieczonka, H.C. Arentsen, Andrea Necchi, Girish S. Kulkarni, Manish I. Patel, David Cahn, Jong Kil Nam, Martin Boegemann, Shalaka Hampras, K. Stromberg, Jason Martin, Abhijit Shulka, Hussein Sweiti, Michiel Simon Van Der Heijden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersJanssen Research and Development
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerCystectomyGemcitabineCohorttar (computing)Carcinoma in situInternal medicineUrologyCancerOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

701 Background: RC is the recommended treatment (tx) option for pts with BCG-unresponsive HR NMIBC. However, RC is associated with significant risk of morbidity, mortality, and impact on quality of life (QoL); some patients may refuse/be ineligible for RC. In a systemic review of 160 real-world studies, <20% of pts with HR NMIBC recurrent after BCG underwent RC (PMID 35046678). For RC-ineligible pts, bladder-sparing tx is recommended. TAR-200, a novel intravesical drug delivery system that provides sustained release of gemcitabine within the bladder, is under investigation in pts with BCG-unresponsive HR NMIBC who are ineligible for/refuse RC in the ongoing ph 2b SunRISe-1 (SR-1) study (NCT04640623). Preliminary results showed a promising complete response (CR) rate of 73% and durable responses in pts with BCG-unresponsive HR NMIBC treated with TAR-200 (Daneshmand et al. AUA 2023). We report reasons for refusal/ineligibility for RC in pts enrolled in the TAR-200 monotherapy cohort of SR-1. Methods: SR-1 is evaluating the efficacy and safety of TAR-200 + cetrelimab (CET; anti–PD-1) (Cohort 1 [C1]), TAR-200 alone (C2), or CET alone (C3). Pts ≥18 y with histologically confirmed carcinoma in situ (CIS) ± papillary disease (T1, high-grade Ta) who completed adequate BCG and recurred ≤12 mo since last BCG dose with ECOG performance status (PS) of 0-2 are randomized to C1, C2, or C3. As of Amendment 4, pts with papillary disease only will be enrolled in C4 with TAR-200 alone. The primary end point is overall CR rate at any time. Refusal/ineligibility for RC was documented in the electronic case report form. Results: As of Aug 24, 2023, 54 pts were treated in C2. Median age was 71 y (range 40-85). Pts had a median of 12 (range 7-42) prior BCG doses with a median of 3.0 mo (range 0.2-22.0) from last BCG dose to recurrence. Most pts (96%) had ECOG PS 0; 33% had CIS with papillary disease. 50%, 48%, and 19% of pts had a medical history of Gr ≥2 metabolic, vascular, and cardiac conditions, respectively, and 9% were current nicotine users. Overall, 51 (94%) pts refused RC; 3 (6%) were ineligible (Table). The most common reason for refusal was a preference for bladder preservation (52%), followed by concern about QoL (37%). Pts were ineligible for RC due to medical/surgical comorbidities (4%) and age (2%). Conclusions: Most pts enrolled in C2 of SR-1 refused RC, with preference for bladder preservation and QoL concerns being the most common reason for refusal. This highlights the need for bladder-sparing tx options for pts with HR NMIBC recurrent after BCG. Clinical trial information: NCT04640623 . [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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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