ReviewDer Pathologe2019
[Predictive biomarkers in bladder cancer].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proteasomal Processing Immune Escape Mechanisms in Platinum-Treated Advanced Bladder Cancer.Genes · 2022Article
- [Molecular pathology of urogenital tumors : Recommendations from the 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference].Der Pathologe · 2021Review
- Liver Cirrhosis in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Is Associated with Genetic Variations in DNA Repair Pathway Genes.Cancers · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the last few years, significant progress has been achieved in the therapeutic options for advanced urothelial bladder cancer.
objectivesThe aim of this work was to give an overview of the status and future perspective of the therapeutic options in this setting. Its focus is on the discussion of tissue-based therapy-predictive markers, which are evaluated through (molecular) pathology and thereby strengthening the role of pathology itself. MATERIALS AND
methodsCurrent (clinical study) data, the literature, and our own expertise were considered and summarized in the areas of therapy prediction of platinum-based chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and other therapeutic approaches. RESULTS AND
conclusionsMolecular subtypes exhibit a predictive value both in platinum-based chemotherapy as well as in immunotherapy. However, further work is required to elucidate the predictive role of molecular subtypes in both settings. Changes in the DNA damage repair enzyme (DDR) genes, ERCC2, and ERBB2 as well as differences in the expression of EMMPRIN, survivin, and HMGA2 show promising results as further markers of chemotherapy efficacy. In the prediction of immunotherapy success, this mainly relates to the evaluation of the tumor mutation burden (TMB), tumor neoantigen burden (TNB), APOBEC signatures (MSig1; 3A/3B), and CD8-positive T‑effector cell signature. When using the fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor erdafitinib, which has not yet been approved in Germany, the evaluation of specific FGFR mutations and/or gene fusions by a companion diagnostic test is mandatory in the USA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.