Systematic Review: Seventy-Seven Cases of Signet Ring Cell Adenocarcinoma of the Bladder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Signet ring cell adenocarcinoma (SRCC) of the bladder is a rare and aggressive histological subtype of bladder cancer. Due to its infrequency, the understanding of its clinical behaviour, treatment strategies, and outcomes remains limited, being primarily derived from isolated case reports and series. Objective: To systematically review and analyse the available literature on SRCC of the bladder, emphasizing its clinical characteristics, diagnostic approaches, treatment modalities, and outcomes. Material and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Medline following the PRISMA guidelines, including case reports, case series, observational studies, and clinical trials reporting on bladder SRCC. Results: We included 38 articles reporting on 77 patients, primarily males (79.2%), with a median age of 64 years. The most common presenting symptoms were haematuria (64.8%) and lower urinary tract symptoms (46.3%). All the diagnoses were based on histopathological examination of bladder tissue samples and immunohistochemistry. Mixed histological types of bladder cancer were found in 20.7% of cases, most commonly urothelial carcinoma (61.1%). The treatments varied, with 53.2% of patients undergoing radical cystectomy, 24.7% receiving radiotherapy, and 16.9% receiving chemotherapy. The five-year survival rates were 9.4%. Conclusion: Bladder SRCC presents aggressively, with varied treatment strategies; however, radical cystectomy appears to be the optimal means of surgical management for organ-confined disease. The overall survival rate is low, highlighting the need for further research to understand and manage this rare bladder cancer variant. All patients should undergo evaluation to exclude extravesical primaries. This systematic review contributes to a better understanding of this disease and may guide clinical management strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".