Long‐term outcomes of bladder‐sparing therapy vs radical cystectomy in BCG‐unresponsive non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the oncological risks of bladder-sparing therapy (BST) in patients with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) compared to upfront radical cystectomy (RC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pre-specified data elements were collected from retrospective cohorts of patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC from 10 international sites. After Institutional Review Board approval, patients were included if they had BCG-unresponsive NMIBC meeting United States Food and Drug Administration criteria. Oncological outcomes were collected following upfront RC or BST. BST regimens included re-resection or surveillance only, repeat BCG, intravesical chemotherapy, systemic immunotherapy, and clinical trials. RESULTS: Among 578 patients, 28% underwent upfront RC and 72% received BST. The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 50 (20-69) months. There were no statistically significant differences in metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, or overall survival between treatment groups. In the BST group, high-grade recurrence rates were 37% and 52% at 12 and 24 months and progression to MIBC was observed in 7% and 13% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. RC was performed in 31.7% in the BST group and nodal disease was found in 13% compared with 4% in upfront RC (P = 0.030). CONCLUSION: In a selected cohort of patients, initial BST offers comparable survival outcomes to upfront RC in the intermediate term. Rates of recurrence and progression increase over time especially in patients treated with additional lines of BST.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".