Survival Outcomes in Patients with Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Bladder cancer (BC) is the ninth most common malignancy worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC), a rare histological variant, accounts for approximately 2–5% of all BC cases. Compared to urothelial carcinoma, the predominant subtype, research on SqCC remains limited and shows inconsistent findings regarding prognosis. This study aimed to compare survival outcomes between patients with SqCC and those with pure urothelial carcinoma (PUC). Methods: This retrospective, observational study analyzed pathology reports from 2549 transurethral resections of bladder tumors and 632 cystectomies performed at our institution between 1 December 2010 and 31 December 2023. Following pathological re-evaluation, 33 patients with SqCC and 132 with PUC were identified. After 1:3 propensity score matching, 20 patients with SqCC and 58 with PUC were included in the final analysis. Demographic, clinicopathological features, and survival outcomes were compared between groups. Results: The median follow-up was 2.31 years (range: 0.17–13.50). No significant differences in baseline demographic or clinical characteristics were observed, except for the type of surgery. Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS; p = 0.961) or overall survival (OS; p = 0.847) between SqCC and PUC groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified T stage, nodal involvement, and adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) as independent predictors of DFS, while sex and metastasis at diagnosis were significant predictors of OS. Conclusion: Survival outcomes (DFS and OS) did not significantly differ between patients with SqCC and patients with PUC. Prognosis was more closely associated with disease stage at diagnosis, sex, and adjuvant CT. Further large-scale studies are warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".