Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29459997›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2018

The effects of intra-arterial chemotherapy on bladder preservation in patients with T1 stage bladder cancer.

Zefu Liu, Yunlin Ye, Xiangdong Li, Shengjie Guo, Lijuan Jiang, Pei Dong, Yonghong Li, Yanxia Shi, Weijun Fan, Yun Cao and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zefu LiuDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Yunlin YeDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Xiangdong LiDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Shengjie GuoDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Lijuan JiangDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Pei DongDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Yonghong LiDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Yanxia ShiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Weijun FanDepartment of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yun CaoDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Kai YaoDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Zike QinDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Hui HanDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Fangjian ZhouDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China. zhoufj@sysucc.org.cn.
Zhuowei LiuDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China. liuzhw@sysucc.org.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8159-3033
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the effects of intra-arterial chemotherapy on T1 stage bladder cancer (Bca) and evaluate patient outcome with bladder-preserving treatment approaches. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 238 patients with T1 stage Bca were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 35 patients were categorized into the subgroup of highest-risk T1 stage according to the European Association of Urology guidelines and received immediate radical cystectomy (RC group), whereas 62 were classified as being highest-risk T1 patients but were unwilling to undergo RC and were treated with gemcitabine plus cisplatin intra-arterial chemotherapy (GC group). There were 141 T1 patients who had bladder-preserving surgery with intravesical chemotherapy (IVC group).

resultsFor patients with T1 stage Bca, the GC group had a higher estimated recurrence-free survival rate (44.4 vs. 13.9%, P = 0.087), progression-free survival rate (75.4 vs. 32.8%, P = 0.006), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rate (78.7 vs. 67.5%, P = 0.399) when compared with the IVC group, respectively. Using the multivariable regression model, the GC intra-arterial chemotherapy was significantly related to bladder preservation (P = 0.004), lower recurrence (P = 0.012), and less progression (P = 0.004). For patients with the highest-risk T1 stage, GC group did not have a poorer CSS rate in comparison with the RC group (P = 0.383). Moreover, immediate RC did not confer a survival benefit in terms of CSS when compared with those who underwent deferred RC after failing GC intra-arterial chemotherapy (P = 0.283).

conclusionsGemcitabine plus cisplatin intra-arterial chemotherapy may be an effective bladder-preserving alternative adjuvant treatment for patients with T1 stage Bca with oncologic benefits, good compliance, and low toxicity.

Indexed as

AgedAntineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsChemotherapy, AdjuvantChinaCisplatinCystectomyDeoxycytidineDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleGemcitabineHumansInjections, Intra-ArterialMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalAntineoplastic AgentsCisplatinDeoxycytidineGemcitabineBladder cancerBladder preservationIntra-arterial chemotherapyT1

Identifiers

PMID29459997
OpenAlexW2793829872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.