Multicenter Retrospective Registry Study on BCG Use in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer in Latin America: BLATAM (Bladder Cancer in Latin America) Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study, conducted by the Bladder Cancer in Latin America (BLATAM) group, aims to analyze epidemiological and therapeutic data on non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) in Latin American patients. It seeks to identify factors contributing to suboptimal responses to Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy and assess areas for improvement in regional treatment practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was carried out in collaboration with reference Urology Departments across Latin America. Data were collected using an electronic Case Report Form (CRF) from 2011 to 2021, capturing demographics, clinical presentation, treatment details, and follow-up of NMIBC patients treated with BCG. Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for relapse-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Data from 292 patients across five countries were analyzed, with a mean age of 70.3 years and a male prevalence of 74%. Smoking history was reported in 70.6% of patients. The mean time to the first BCG dose was 2.4 months post-TURBT, with 26.7% of patients exceeding the recommended 60-day window for induction initiation. While 84% of patients completed BCG induction, only 45.9% followed the recommended Lamm maintenance schedule. Delays in starting maintenance cycles were observed, with a median delay of over 36 days for the first cycle and 65 days for the second cycle. RFS at 1 year and 5 years for high-risk patients was 87.3% and 53.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights critical deviations from recommended NMIBC management protocols in Latin America, including delayed BCG initiation and inconsistencies in maintenance therapy. These findings emphasize the need for standardized treatment protocols and improved adherence to international guidelines, which could enhance NMIBC patient outcomes in the region. Collaborative efforts are essential to develop region-specific strategies, improve data collection, and ultimately provide better care for bladder cancer patients in Latin America.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".