Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28516152›Full record

ReviewBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2017

CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy: A Novel Treatement Strategy for Bladder Cancer.

Qi Pan, Anuja Sathe, Peter C Black, Peter J Goebell, Ashish M Kamat, Bernd Schmitz-Draeger, Roman Nawroth

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitors in solid tumors: a review of clinical trials.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Qi PanDepartment of Urology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Anuja SatheDepartment of Urology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Peter C BlackVancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Peter J GoebellDepartment of Urology, Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen, Germany.
Ashish M KamatDepartment of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Bernd Schmitz-DraegerDepartment of Urology, Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen, Germany; Urologie(24)/Urology Schön Klinik Nürnberg Fürth, Fürth, Germany.
Roman NawrothDepartment of Urology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
TUM Klinikum · DEFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DESchön Klinik Nürnberg Fürth · DEThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with metastatic bladder cancer (mBC) treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy have a limited median survival of only around 14 months [1]. Despite over 30 years of basic and clinical research, until recently no therapeutic options beyond cisplatin-based therapy had entered clinical routine and, at least in the US, none of the tested agents had been approved for second-line treatment. This has changed with the advent of immune checkpoint blockade, including especially PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. The high response rates of 24% over a 14.4 month follow up led to the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a second line therapy for these patients, and it is likely that this marks the beginning of a new era in the systemic treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer [2-4]. The strong clinical need to improve the medical management of this disease for those patients, not responding to current therapy has led to an increased molecular understanding of bladder cancer and has forstered the development of many potential molecular manipulations and targeted strategies beyond the new immune-oncologic approaches. Among the molecular alterations indentified in bladder cancer, cell cycle deregulation appears to be a key driver of disease progression. Target-directed therapy against CDK4/6 is an emerging strategy to regain control of cell cycle deregulation. Here, we provide an overview of the current status of CDK4/6 inhibitors in cancer therapy, their potential use in mBC and the challenges for their clinical use.

Indexed as

Bladder cancerCDK4/6 inhibitorcell cycleretinoblastomatargeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID28516152
PMCPMC5409046
OpenAlexW2609244474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.