ReviewTurkish journal of urology2014
What are the currently available and in development molecular markers for bladder cancer? Will they prove to be useful in the future?
Review in Turkish journal of urology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 8-armed octopus: Evaluation of clinicopathologic prognostic factors of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary systemTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urothelial carcinoma is the 9(th) most common cancer worldwide. Most urothelial tumors are non-muscle invasive on presentation. However, two-thirds of non-invasive bladder cancers will eventually recur with a 25% risk of progression to muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Tumor stage, histological grade and pathological invasion of blood vessels and lymphatic tissue are the main indicators for urothelial cancer prognosis. The gold standard for diagnosing bladder cancer is conventional white-light cystoscopy and biopsy. Urine cytology is a highly specific, sensitive test for high-grade tumors or carcinoma in situ (CIS). Urinary NMP22 has an overall sensitivity and specificity for detecting bladder cancer of 49% and 87%, respectively. However, there are false-positive results in the presence of urinary tract infection or hematuria. The detection of specific gene mutations related to urothelial cancers has been studied and employed to reproduce markers helpful for diagnosis. According to current studies, molecular markers can be used to predict tumor recurrence. From a prognostic point of view, new molecular markers have yet to be established as reliable indicators of tumor aggressiveness. We aimed to review the molecular markers with possible prognostic significance that have been discussed in the literature. This review examined the literature for various molecular markers under development for bladder cancer in an attempt to optimize patient care and reduce the costs of treating these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.