Non-Surgical Bladder-Sparing Multimodal Management in Organ-Confined Urothelial Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder: A Population-Based Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Trimodal therapy is considered the most validated bladder-sparing treatment in patients with organ-confined urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder (T2N0M0). However, scarce evidence exists regarding cancer-specific mortality (CSM) differences between trimodal therapy and other non-extirpative multimodal treatment options such as radiotherapy alone after transurethral resection (TURBT + RT) or chemotherapy alone after transurethral resection (TURBT + CT). Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004–2020), we identified T2N0M0 patients treated with either trimodal therapy, TURBT + CT, or TURBT + RT. Temporal trends described trimodal therapy vs. TUBRT + CT vs. TURBT + RT use over time. Survival analyses consisting of Kaplan–Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression (MCR) models addressed CSM according to each treatment modality. Results: 3729 (40%) patients underwent TMT vs. 4030 (43%) TURBT + CT vs. 1599 (17%) TURBT + RT. Over time, trimodal therapy use (Estimating annual percent change, EAPC: +1.2%, p = 0.01) and TURBT + CT use increased (EAPC: +1.5%, p = 0.01). In MCR models, relative to trimodal therapy, TURBT + CT exhibited 1-14-fold higher CSM and TURBT + RT 1.68-fold higher CSM. In a subgroup analysis, TURBT + RT was associated with 1.42-fold higher CSM than TURBT + CT (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Strict trimodal therapy that includes both CT and RT after TURBT offers the best cancer control. When strict trimodal therapy cannot be delivered, cancer-specific survival outcomes appear to be superior with TURBT + chemotherapy compared to TURBT + RT.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".