MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Retrospective analysis of outcomes of patients with bladder cancer when neoadjuvant chemotherapy is delayed.

2024· article· en· W4399394238 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zakhar Kanyuka, Sandy Kassir, Nelson Leong, Osama Souied

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health AuthoritySaskatchewan HealthUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChemotherapyBladder cancerOncologyRetrospective cohort studyNeoadjuvant therapyInternal medicineUrothelial cancerCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e16588 Background: Bladder (urothelial) cancer is the sixth most common form of cancer in the United States of America and results in significant morbidity and mortality. American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines recommend that muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is treated with a course of cisplatin-based multi-agent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to radical cystectomy (RC). The optimal timing of NAC is not well studied. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the impact of timing NAC treatment to compare clinical outcomes among patients at the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency (SCA). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the SCA electronic registry, reviewing the clinical and pathological data of 42 patients diagnosed with MIBC and treated with platinum-based NAC from January 2000 to December 2018. Patients with non-MIBC, metastatic bladder cancer, non-urothelial carcinoma histology, and charts with insufficient data were excluded. Survival analysis using Kaplan-Meier methods and log rank tests were utilized to compare overall survival (OS), disease recurrence, and post-RC surgical pathological staging of patients with respect to pre-specified time intervals between diagnosis, NAC and RC. Results: Patients who received NAC later than 8 weeks after diagnosis were more likely to have reduced OS (HR 1.25, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.09-1.35, p=0.02). They also were more likely to have lymph node involvement (HR 1.63, 95% CI: 1.03-1.77, p=0.006). Patients who received RC more than 6 weeks after NAC completion were more likely to have more advanced primary tumour staging on pathology (HR 1.95, 95% CI: 1.3-2.09, p=0.01), but did not have significantly decreased OS (HR 1.88, 95% CI: 0.48-1.95, p=0.08). Delayed NAC (HR 2.77, 95% CI: 1.44-4.57, p<0.001) and RC (HR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.08-3.10, p<0.001) were associated with increased recurrence. Age, sex, body mass index, NAC regimen, and prior intravesical treatment were not statistically associated with OS upon analysis with univariate cox proportional hazard regression analysis. Conclusions: This review suggests an OS benefit by reducing the time from diagnosis to NAC in MIBC patients. This finding contrasts other studies that do not demonstrate any impact of delayed NAC on OS. These findings align with other works that do not show a survival detriment of delaying RC beyond 6 weeks after NAC completion. However, delaying surgery is associated with more advanced pathologic tumour staging. This study identifies the possibility of an association between delays in treatment delivery and worse clinical outcomes in some cohorts. Accordingly, further investigation of interval timing can better inform treatment planning and resource allocation in the management of patients with MIBC.

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)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.391 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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