Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30345422›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology oncology2018

Systematic Review of Comorbidity and Competing-risks Assessments for Bladder Cancer Patients.

Stephen B Williams, Ashish M Kamat, Karim Chamie, Michael Froehner, Manfred P Wirth, Peter N Wiklund, Peter C Black, Gary D Steinberg, Stephen A Boorjian, Sia Daneshmand and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [Urinary diversion in old patients (80+ years)].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Bladder Cancer and Artificial Intelligence: Emerging Applications.The Urologic clinics of North America · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

14 authors.

Stephen B WilliamsDivision of Urology, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.
Ashish M KamatDepartment of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Karim ChamieDepartment of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Michael FroehnerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Manfred P WirthDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Peter N WiklundDepartment of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Peter C BlackDepartment of Urologic Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Gary D SteinbergDepartment of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Stephen A BoorjianDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Sia DaneshmandUSC Institute of Urology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Peter J GoebellDepartment of Urology, Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen, Germany.
Kamal S PoharDepartment of Urology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
George N ThalmannDepartment of Urology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

UTMB Clinical and Translational Science AwardKL2TR001441 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI AMEREDES, BILL T · 2015 to 2024
$4.0M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001441
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextRadical cystectomy continues to be associated with a significant risk of morbidity and all-cause mortality (ACM). Practice pattern data demonstrating underuse of surgery for patients with muscle-invasive and high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (BC) have been linked to the advanced age and higher comorbidity status of such patients, which suggests that rates of ACM as well as cancer-specific mortality should be incorporated into patient counseling and guideline recommendations.

objectiveTo review the literature on risk assessment tools for preoperative comorbidity in BC that may aid in treatment decision-making. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic search was conducted using Ovid and Medline according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to identify studies between 1970 and 2017 reporting on comorbidity risk assessment (CRA) tools for BC. Prospective and retrospective studies were included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: There are no published randomized control trials comparing CRA tools for BC. Patients undergoing radical cystectomy with combined high-risk comorbidity and performance scores may face up to a sevenfold greater risk of other-cause mortality compared to those with low scores. The Charlson Comorbidity Index is one of the most widely studied indices for 90-d perioperative mortality and overall and cancer-specific survival, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of up to 0.810. Prospective studies of CRA tools for BC have consistently shown that patients with higher comorbidity have worse outcomes. While not specific for BC, comorbidity indices provide useful assessment of competing risks. Competing-risks assessment tools are lacking, with limited studies assessing the impact of these tools on treatment decision-making by patients and providers. We provide the impetus for incorporation of comorbidity risks into practice guidelines when discussing treatment options with patients.

conclusionsCRA tools should be incorporated into preoperative treatment counseling and the assessment of postoperative outcomes. While retrospective evidence supports the use of CRA tools for BC, further comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of these tools and identifying the patients most likely to benefit from a treatment according to competing-risks assessment are needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review we explored the clinical evidence for comorbidity risk assessment tools in bladder cancer. We found evidence to support incorporation of comorbidity risks into practice guidelines when discussing treatment options with patients.

Indexed as

Bladder cancerComorbidityCompeting risksIndicesModelsMortalityReviewSurvival

Identifiers

PMID30345422
PMCPMC6190914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.