Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30588457›Full record

ReviewResearch and reports in urology2018

Emerging biomarkers for the diagnosis and monitoring of urothelial carcinoma.

Makito Miyake, Takuya Owari, Shunta Hori, Yasushi Nakai, Kiyohide Fujimoto

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research and reports in urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

Makito MiyakeDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara-shi, Nara 634-8522, Japan, makitomiyake@yahoo.co.jp.
Takuya OwariDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara-shi, Nara 634-8522, Japan, makitomiyake@yahoo.co.jp.
Shunta HoriDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara-shi, Nara 634-8522, Japan, makitomiyake@yahoo.co.jp.
Yasushi NakaiDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara-shi, Nara 634-8522, Japan, makitomiyake@yahoo.co.jp.
Kiyohide FujimotoDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara-shi, Nara 634-8522, Japan, makitomiyake@yahoo.co.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) arises extensively from the renal pelvis, ureter, urinary bladder, and urethra. UC represents a clinical and social challenge because of its incidence, post-treatment recurrence rate, and prognosis. Combinations of urine cytology, cystoscopy, and conventional imaging such as computed tomography are currently used for diagnosis and monitoring modalities of UC. Both the poor diagnostic accuracy of urine cytology and poor cost performance of cystoscopy and conventional imaging modalities emphasize the urgent need for advancement in clinical guidance for UC. Urine- and blood-based biomarkers for detection of UC of the bladder and upper urinary tract represent a considerable research area. Biomarkers can help to improve UC diagnosis with the aim of replacing cystoscopy and other imaging examinations in future and may enable individualizing risk stratification regarding therapy and follow-up. Over the decades, numerous studies have focused on the potential application of biomarkers for UC, including urine, circulating tumor DNA, RNAs, proteins, and extracellular vesicles. Although some biomarkers such as ImmunoCyt/uCyt+, UroVysion, NMP-22, bladder tumor antigen, CxBladder, and Xpert Bladder Cancer are currently available in clinical practice, few biomarkers achieve high sensitivity and specificity. Emerging biomarkers are continuously developed and reported in medical journals. However, there is a significant lack on following external validation using different cohorts. The positive results are needed to be confirmed by more studies with large-scale cohorts and long follow-up periods to prove the true value of novel biomarkers, followed by their adoption in clinical practice. The present paper provides an overview of the evidence based on high-impact studies regarding urine- and blood-based biomarkers and their clinical applications in bladder cancer and upper tract UC.

Indexed as

biomarkerbladder cancerdiagnosissurveillanceupper urinary tract cancerurothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID30588457
PMCPMC6299471

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.