↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Utility of Clinical Risk Stratification in the Selection of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Patients for Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Published in
Bladder Cancer, January 2017
DOI 10.3233/blc-160062
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Introduction: Level I evidence supports the use of cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy (RC). On average, 30-40% of patients achieve a complete pathologic response (i.e., stage pT0) after receiving NAC. Some centers risk-stratify patients, suggesting that there may be a higher-risk population that would derive the most benefit from NAC. Recently, a risk-stratification model developed at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) specified criteria for clinical staging and patient selection for NAC. We applied this model to our own RC patient cohort and evaluated our own experience with clinical risk stratification and the effect of NAC on post treatment risk categories. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of consecutive patients who underwent RC at two institutions between 2004 and 2014 and noted whether or not they received NAC. We determined the clinical stage by reviewing the exam under anesthesia, transurethral resection biopsy (TURBT) pathology, and preoperative imaging. Patients with cT2-T4a node-negative disease were included. Those with sarcomatoid features or adenocarcinoma were excluded. Patients were classified as high risk if they had tumor-associated hydronephrosis, clinical stage≥T3b-T4a disease, variant histology (i.e., micropapillary or small cell), or lymphovascular invasion (LVI), as specified by the MDACC model. Variables were examined for associations with cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and risk-category reclassification. Results: We identified 166 patients with a median follow-up time of 22.2 months. In all, 117 patients (70.5%) did not receive NAC, 68 (58.1%) of whom we classified as high risk. Among patients not receiving NAC, CSS and OS were significantly decreased in high-risk patients (log-rank test p = 0.01 for both comparisons). The estimated age-adjusted hazard ratios of high-risk classification for cancer-specific and overall death were 3.2 (95% CI: 1.2 to 8.6) and 2.2 (95% CI: 1.1 to 4.4), respectively. On post-RC final pathology, 23 (46.9%) low-risk patients were up-classified to high risk and 17 (25.0%) high-risk patients were down-classified. Complete pathologic responses (pT0) were achieved in 7 (6.0%) patients and partial responses (pT1, pTa, pTis) were achieved in 28 (23.9%) patients. Of the 49 patients who did receive NAC, 43 (87.8%) received cisplatin-based and six (12.2%) received carboplatin-based regimens. Applying the MDACC model, we categorized 41 (83.7%) patients as high risk prior to NAC treatment. On final pathology, 3 (37.5%) low-risk patients were up-classified and 17 (41.5%) high-risk patients were down-classified. Complete pathologic responses (pT0) were seen in 13 (26.5%) patients and partial responses were seen in 10 (20.4%) patients. Although the utilization of NAC was not statistically significantly associated with CSS or OS (log-rank test p > 0.05 for both comparisons), it was associated with a 1.2 times increased odds (95% CI: 0.4 to 2.1) of post-RC reclassification from high to low risk on age-adjusted logistic regression. Conclusions: We found similar results using the clinical risk-stratification model in our cohort and showed that the high-risk category was associated with lower CSS and OS. NAC was associated with a higher probability of risk reclassification from high to low risk.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 9 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Chemistry 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#21,160,107
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from Bladder Cancer
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#325,402
of 426,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bladder Cancer
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,992,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.5. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them