MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397025221 · doi:10.1681/asn.20203110s110d

Kidney and Cancer Outcomes with Standard vs. Kidney Protective Chemotherapy Regimens for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

2020· article· en· W4397025221 on OpenAlexaff
Gabrielle Côté, Husam Alqaisi, Srikala S. Sridhar, Abhijat Kitchlu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChemotherapyUrothelial cancerUrothelial carcinomaCancerKidneyOncologyUrologyMetastatic Urothelial CarcinomaKidney cancerCarcinomaInternal medicineBladder cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy regimen is the optimal initial treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma, but kidney function eligibility and nephrotoxicity are treatment-limiting for many patients. For patients unfit to receive cisplatin, other options include alternative administration schedules (e.g. split dose cisplatin), carboplatin-based regimens and non-platinum regimens. The aims of this study were to compare cancer outcomes and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) during treatment among 3 regimens of chemotherapy. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective study of patients receiving first-line chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (2005-2019). We compared standard gemcitabine-cisplatin (gem-cis) to: 1) gemcitabine-cisplatin split dose regimen (split) with cisplatin divided over day 1 and 8; and 2) combination of gemcitabine-carboplatin or single-agent gemcitabine (gem/gem-carbo). We used Fine and Gray hazard models accounting for baseline covariates and competing risk of death. Results: We identified 183 patients (98 gem-cis, 32 split and 53 gem/gem-carbo). Median age was 67 years-old (IQR: 61-73) and 76% were male. Median baseline eGFR was 78 mL/min/1.73m2 (IQR: 66-91) in gem-cis, 64 (48-77) in split, and 45 (33-57) in gem/gem-carbo. Patients receiving split and gem/gem-carbo were older, had worse performance status, and hypertension was more frequent. Split and gem/gem-carbo regimens were associated with higher mortality and progressive disease relative to gem-cis when adjusted for age, baseline eGFR, ECOG, hypertension and diabetes with hazard ratio (HR) of 1.56 (95%CI: 1.04-2.34; p=0.03) and 2.02 (95%CI: 1.36-3.01; p<0.01) respectively. Median time to progressive disease was 242 (IQR: 137-444), 182 (122-279) and 131 (68-257) days in gem-cis, split and gem/gem-carbo groups. There was no significant association between regimen type and AKI with HR of 1.32 (95%CI: 0.62-2.81; p=0.47) and 0.98 (95%CI:0.46-2.09; p=0.96) for split and gem/gem-carbo groups versus gem-cis. Conclusions: Kidney protective chemotherapy regimens were associated with increased disease progression and mortality, without a significant difference in AKI. Alternative kidney protective strategies are needed for patients with CKD and urothelial cancer.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207