End Points for the Next-Generation Bladder-Sparing Perioperative Trials for Patients With Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The evolving treatment landscape of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) increasingly warrants novel trial design to evaluate perioperative strategies aimed at bladder preservation. To establish standardized outcome measures for evaluating organ preservation strategies in MIBC, the International Bladder Cancer Group (IBCG) and the Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors (GSRGT) assembled an international, multidisciplinary consensus panel. METHODS: The IBCG and GSRGT gathered global bladder cancer experts and patient advocates to establish a framework for risk-adapted bladder-sparing treatment approaches for MIBC. Working groups reviewed the literature and developed draft recommendations, which were discussed at a live meeting in December 2024 in Milan. This was followed by voting by the members using a modified Delphi process. Recommendations achieving ≥75% agreement during the meeting were further refined and presented. RESULTS: Clinical complete response (cCR) definition should encompass the absence of high-grade malignancy on pathology and malignant cells on urine cytology and no evidence of local or metastatic disease on cross-sectional imaging. Although cCR remains immature as a primary or coprimary end point in registrational trials, it could serve as a suitable end point in early-phase studies and risk-adapted investigations. Event-free survival (EFS) remains the preferred primary end point as it could reliably capture the durability of clinically meaningful benefit after omittance of surgical consolidation or chemoradiation. Given the composite nature of EFS, events should be prespecified, evaluated in an intention-to-treat approach, and meticulously collected. Continuous assessment of individual patient preferences should begin at the outset of perioperative therapy discussions, with informed decision making prioritized throughout. CONCLUSION: The consensus definition of cCR and the framework presented in this study can serve as a foundation for thorough testing of risk-adapted bladder-sparing treatment paradigms for 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 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 | 0.171 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".