MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417166940 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf320.395

(401) Low Grade Papillary Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder Presenting as PGAD/GPD: A Case Report

2025· article· en· W4417166940 on OpenAlexaff
S. Ponce, Emily K. Burr, M Davide, Marta Kolbuszewska, S Mckinny, I Goldstein, Romina Rubin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary and Genital Oncology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysuriaSex organCystoscopyDistressingDistressTransitional cell carcinomaPresentation (obstetrics)Physical examinationUrinary bladder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder/Genito-Pelvic Dysesthesia (PGAD/GPD) is a rare and distressing condition characterized by unwanted genital arousal without associated sexual desire. While cases of PGAD/GPD caused by interstitial cystitis, urethritis, and urethral diverticulum have been described, PGAD/GPD secondary to bladder cancer has not yet been reported. As cases of young female patients without a significant family history of bladder cancer or smoking history are rare, the clinical presentation of these cases may not be well defined in the literature. Objective To describe the first known case of PGAD/GPD as the initial presentation of low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in a young female. Methods This was a case report using retrospective chart review, a structured one-on-one interview, and validated measures to quantify PGAD/GPD-related distress and catastrophizing. Results A 26 year old healthy female presented with a three month history of constant, distressing clitoral throbbing and pain in her vulvar vestibule that began during masturbation. She also noted dysuria, urinary frequency, urgency, intermittent hematuria, and nocturia 2-3 times per night. She was displaying clinically relevant, distressing PGAD/GPD symptoms, scoring 60 out of 60 on the Persistent Genital Arousal Sensations Questionnaire (PGASQ) and 47 out of 52 on the Pain-Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). She denied any smoking history but did report a history of resin exposure in her career as an artist. She had been seen by psychotherapy, received topical lidocaine, and underwent pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) without relief. A urologist attempted a clitoral stretching procedure and recommended a clitoridectomy. After seeking a second opinion, she underwent a bladder ultrasound which revealed a 7 x 5 x 6 mm nonmobile lesion in the left posterior bladder wall, lateral to the ureteral orifice. Cystoscopy and pathology revealed low grade papillary (Ta) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and trans-urethral resection of bladder tumor was performed. Symptoms had completely resolved three months after the procedure with continued use of topical lidocaine gel and PFPT. Two years later she underwent cystoscopy to evaluate recurrence of genitourinary symptoms and was found to have a large amount of squamous metaplasia in the left trigone on cystoscopy. After fulguration she continued to experience symptoms and was treated with one course of nitrofurantoin despite negative urine culture, after which her symptoms again resolved. At the time of writing, the patient is no longer displaying clinically relevant, distressing PGAD/GPD symptoms, scoring 18 out of 60 on the PGASQ and 19 out of 52 on the PCS. Conclusions This is the first known instance of bladder cancer diagnosis following presentation with PGAD/GPD. The proposed hypothesis involves stimulation of the pelvic nerves with subsequent crossed-central sensitization at the level of the sacral plexus sending efferent signals to both the pelvic nerve causing irritative voiding symptoms, and to the pudendal nerve causing clitoral and vestibular dysesthesia. Secondary hypertonic pelvic floor dysfunction may exacerbate symptoms. Further investigation is warranted to better understand the relationship between bladder tumors and PGAD/GPD. Disclosure No

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicUrinary and Genital Oncology StudiesFrench-language works237,207