ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2017
Peri-operative chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: status-quo in 2017.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Placebo in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma.The New England journal of medicine · 2021Trial
- Survey of perioperative treatment in muscle-invasive bladder cancer using Japanese hospital-based claims database.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Trends in utilization of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer.Investigative and clinical urology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of perioperative chemotherapy associated with radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer has been analyzed in several landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over the past decades. With regard to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), a meta-analysis of level 1 evidence and long-term results from the largest RCTs support its use, which is currently advocated as the standard of care by most of the clinical guidelines worldwide. However, with regard to the delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC), evidence is more contentious. Specifically, several meta-analyses demonstrated a survival benefit associated with the use of cisplatin-based regimen but investigators identified multiple methodological limitations in most of included RCTs. Nonetheless, AC is currently considered for fit patients with adverse pathological features at RC. It is noteworthy that the delivery of such cytotoxic treatment after surgery may maintain significant anti-tumor activity even in those patients who previously received NAC. Finally, given its greater response rate, the methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin plus cisplatin combination remains preferentially considered in the neoadjuvant setting, while the gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination is more commonly delivered in the adjuvant setting because of its better toxicity profile. However, no prospective evidence comparing efficacy of both regimens for NAC or AC is currently available.
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.