Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31670753›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2019

Eligibility and Radiologic Assessment in Adjuvant Clinical Trials in Bladder Cancer.

Andrea B Apolo, Matthew I Milowsky, Lauren Kim, Brant A Inman, Ashish M Kamat, Gary Steinberg, Mohammadhadi Bagheri, Venkatesh P Krishnasamy, Jamie Marko, Colin P Dinney and 15 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

25 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea B ApoloNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Matthew I MilowskyDepartment of Medicine, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Lauren KimNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Brant A InmanDepartment of Surgery, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Ashish M KamatDepartment of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Gary SteinbergNYU Langone Health, New York, New York.
Mohammadhadi BagheriNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Venkatesh P KrishnasamyNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Jamie MarkoNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Colin P DinneyDepartment of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Rick BangsNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Randy F SweisUniversity of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Virginia Ellen MaherCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Amna IbrahimCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Ke LiuCenter for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Ryan WerntzUniversity of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Frank CrossCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Julia A BeaverCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Harpreet SinghCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Richard PazdurOncology Center of Excellence, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Gideon M BlumenthalOncology Center of Excellence, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Seth P LernerDepartment of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Dean F BajorinDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Jonathan E RosenbergDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Sundeep AgrawalCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
National Institutes of Health · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · USCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Chicago · USBaylor College of Medicine · USCenter for Biologics Evaluation and Research · USDuke Cancer InstituteNYU Langone Health · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Women's Cancer Research ProgramP30CA014236 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI DONNA NIEDZWIECKI · 1985 to 2026
$174.8M
Bladder Cancer ProgramZIABC011351 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI APOLO, ANDREA · 2010 to 2025
$9.4M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA BC011351NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014236
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To harmonize eligibility criteria and radiographic disease assessments in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Methods: National experts in bladder cancer clinical trial research, including medical and urologic oncologists, radiologists, biostatisticians, and patient advocates, convened at a public workshop on November 28, 2017, to discuss eligibility, radiographic entry criteria, and assessment of disease recurrence in adjuvant clinical trials in patients with MIBC. Results: The key workshop conclusions for adjuvant MIBC clinical trials included the following points: (1) patients with urothelial carcinoma with divergent histologic differentiation should be allowed to enroll; (2) neoadjuvant chemotherapy is defined as at least 3 cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy; (3) patients with muscle-invasive, upper-tract urothelial carcinoma should be included in adjuvant trials of MIBC; (4) patients with severe renal insufficiency can enroll into trials using agents that are not renally excreted; (5) patients with microscopic surgical margins can be included; (6) patients should undergo a standard bilateral lymph node dissection prior to enrollment; (7) computed tomographic (CT) imaging should be performed within 4 weeks prior to enrollment. For patients with renal insufficiency who cannot undergo CT imaging with contrast, noncontrast chest CT and magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen and pelvis with gadolinium should be done; (8) biopsy of indeterminate lesions to evaluate for malignant disease should be done when feasible; (9) a uniform approach to evaluate indeterminate radiographic lesions when biopsy is not feasible should be included in any trial design; (10) a uniform approach to determining the date of recurrence is important in interpreting adjuvant trial results; and (11) new high-grade, upper-tract primary tumors and new MIBC tumors should be considered recurrence events. Conclusions and Relevance: A uniform approach to eligibility criteria, definitions of no evidence of disease, and definitions of disease recurrence may lead to more consistent interpretations of adjuvant trial results in MIBC.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionCarcinoma, Transitional CellCisplatinClinical Trials as TopicConsensus Statements as TopicHumansLymph Node ExcisionMagnetic Resonance ImagingMargins of ExcisionNeoadjuvant TherapyPatient AdvocacyTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment OutcomeUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsCisplatin

Identifiers

PMID31670753
PMCPMC8211913
OpenAlexW2982408098

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.