Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30620387›Full record

ArticleCancer2019

Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with adverse features and variant histology at radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive carcinoma of the bladder: Does histologic subtype matter?

Sebastian Berg, David D'Andrea, Malte W Vetterlein, Alexander P Cole, Sean A Fletcher, Marieke J Krimphove, Maya Marchese, Stuart R Lipsitz, Guru Sonpavde, Joachim Noldus and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. SEOM-SOGUG clinical guideline for localized muscle invasive and advanced bladder cancer (2021).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Sebastian BergDivision of Urology and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0002-5770-1575
David D'AndreaDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Malte W VetterleinDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Alexander P ColeDivision of Urology and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0002-0049-8529
Sean A FletcherDivision of Urology and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Marieke J KrimphoveDivision of Urology and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Maya MarcheseDivision of Urology and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Stuart R LipsitzCenter for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Guru SonpavdeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Joachim NoldusDepartment of Urology and Neurourology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Adam S KibelDivision of Urology and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Quoc-Dien TrinhDivision of Urology and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0003-3857-9276
Matthew MossanenDivision of Urology and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0001-5444-2515
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USMedical University of Vienna · ATGoethe University Frankfurt · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversitätsklinik Marien Hospital Herne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in pure urothelial carcinoma of the bladder is established. Regarding variant histology, there is a gap in knowledge concerning the optimal treatment after radical cystectomy (RC). The objective of this study was to assess the effect of AC on overall survival (OS) in patients who had pure urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma with concomitant variant histology, or another pure variant histology.

methodsWithin the National Cancer Data Base, 15,397 patients who underwent RC for nonmetastatic, localized carcinoma of the bladder and had positive lymph nodes (T2N+) or locally advanced stage (≥T3N0/N+) were identified, excluding those who had previously received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to examine the specific effect of AC on OS stratified by each distinct histologic subtype, including pure urothelial carcinoma, micropapillary or sarcomatoid differentiation, squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and neuroendocrine tumors. To account for immortal time bias, Cox regression analyses and Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted with a landmark at 3 months.

resultsIn multivariable landmark analyses, AC compared with initial observation was associated with an OS benefit for patients who had pure urothelial carcinoma (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.91), whereas no differences were observed with regard to those who had variant histology.

conclusionsMultivariable Cox regression landmark analysis revealed a survival benefit from AC for patients with a pure urothelial carcinoma. However, a survival benefit of AC for patients who had urothelial carcinoma with concomitant variant histology or other pure variant histology was not demonstrated.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Transitional CellMuscle NeoplasmsUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsChemotherapy, AdjuvantCombined Modality TherapyCystectomyDatabases, FactualFemaleHistological TechniquesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm Stagingadjuvant chemotherapyoverall survivalradical cystectomyurothelial carcinoma of the bladdervariant histology carcinoma of the bladder

Identifiers

PMID30620387
OpenAlexW2910754226

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.