The optimal number of induction chemotherapy cycles in clinically lymph node‐positive bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the optimal number of induction chemotherapy cycles needed to achieve a pathological response in patients with clinically lymph node-positive (cN+) bladder cancer (BCa) who received three or four cycles of induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymph node dissection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 388 patients who received three or four cycles of cisplatin/gemcitabine or (dose-dense) methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC), followed by consolidative RC for cTanyN1-3M0 BCa. We compared pathological complete (pCR = ypT0N0) and objective response (pOR = yp ≤T1N0) between treatment groups. Predictors of pCR and/or pOR were assessed using uni- and multivariable logistic regression analysis. The secondary endpoints were overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). We evaluated the association between the number of induction chemotherapy cycles administered and survival outcomes on multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Overall, 101 and 287 patients received three or four cycles of induction chemotherapy, respectively. Of these, 72 (19%) and 128 (33%) achieved pCR and pOR response, respectively. The pCR (20%, 18%) and pOR (40%, 31%) rates did not differ significantly between patients receiving three or four cycles (P > 0.05). The number of cycles was not associated with pCR or pOR on multivariable logistic regression analyses. The 2-year OS estimates were 63% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.74) and 63% (95% CI 0.58-0.7) for patients receiving three or four cycles, respectively. Receiving three vs four cycles was not associated with OS and CSS on uni- or multivariable Cox regression analyses. CONCLUSION: Pathological response and survival outcomes did not differ between administering three or four induction chemotherapy cycles in patients with cN+ BCa. A fewer cycles (minimum three) may be oncologically sufficient in patients with cN+ BCa, while decreasing the wait for definitive local therapy in those patients who end up without a response to chemotherapy. This warrants further validation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".