Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29720713›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2018

Treatment resistance in urothelial carcinoma: an evolutionary perspective.

Panagiotis J Vlachostergios, Bishoy M Faltas

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. TP53 mutation-biased CD8British journal of cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Prognostic value ofTranslational cancer research · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Panagiotis J VlachostergiosDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Bishoy M FaltasDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. bmf9003@med.cornell.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The emergence of treatment-resistant clones is a critical barrier to cure in patients with urothelial carcinoma. Setting the stage for the evolution of resistance, urothelial carcinoma is characterized by extensive mutational heterogeneity, which is detectable even in patients with early stage disease. Chemotherapy and immunotherapy both act as selective pressures that shape the evolutionary trajectory of urothelial carcinoma throughout the course of the disease. A detailed understanding of the dynamics of evolutionary drivers is required for the rational development of curative therapies. Herein, we describe the molecular basis of the clonal evolution of urothelial carcinomas and the use of genomic approaches to predict treatment responses. We discuss various mechanisms of resistance to chemotherapy with a focus on the mutagenic effects of the DNA dC->dU-editing enzymes APOBEC3 family of proteins. We also review the evolutionary mechanisms underlying resistance to immunotherapy, such as the loss of clonal tumour neoantigens. By dissecting treatment resistance through an evolutionary lens, the field will advance towards true precision medicine for urothelial carcinoma.

Indexed as

CarcinomaClonal EvolutionDrug Resistance, NeoplasmHumansImmunotherapyMolecular Targeted TherapyMutationPrecision Medicine

Identifiers

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.