Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32539176›Full record

SynthesisBJU international2021

A systematic review on mutation markers for bladder cancer diagnosis in urine.

Anouk E Hentschel, Emma E van der Toom, André N Vis, Johannes C F Ket, Judith Bosschieter, Martijn W Heymans, R Jeroen A van Moorselaar, Renske D M Steenbergen, Jakko A Nieuwenhuijzen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJU international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Metabolomic profiling of human bladder tissue extracts.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

9 authors.

Anouk E HentschelDepartments of, Department of, Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6397-0301
Emma E van der ToomDepartments of, Department of, Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
André N VisDepartments of, Department of, Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes C F KetMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Judith BosschieterDepartments of, Department of, Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0718-897X
Martijn W HeymansAmsterdam, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R Jeroen A van MoorselaarDepartments of, Department of, Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Renske D M SteenbergenDepartment of, Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jakko A NieuwenhuijzenDepartments of, Department of, Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Stichting De Weijerhorst
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically summarise the available evidence on urinary bladder cancer (BC) mutation markers. Gene mutations are expected to provide novel biomarkers for urinary BC diagnosis. To date, evidence on urinary BC mutation markers has not proven sufficient to be adopted by clinical guidelines. In the present systematic review, diagnostic accuracy of urinary mutation analysis is separately assessed for primary BC diagnosis (BC detection) and for follow-up of BC patients (BC surveillance).

methodsA literature search (PubMed, Embase.com and Wiley/Cochrane Library) and systematic review was performed up to 31 October 2019. As studies were too heterogeneous, no quantitative analysis could be performed.

resultsIn total, 25 studies were summarised by qualitative analysis. For BC detection, diagnostic accuracy differed considerably for single mutation markers (sensitivity 1-85%, specificity 84-100%), and for marker panels (sensitivity 50-94%, specificity 43-97%). Similarly, for BC surveillance, diagnostic accuracy was highly variable for single mutation markers (sensitivity 0-85%, specificity 66-100%), and for marker panels (sensitivity 51-84%, specificity 66-96%).

conclusionUrinary mutation analysis showed to be a promising diagnostic tool for non-invasive BC diagnosis. Nonetheless, we observed substantial differences in diagnostic accuracy of urinary BC mutation markers among publications. To translate the data summarised in the present review to future clinical practice, heterogeneity in research design, BC population, mutation analysis technique and urinary DNA should be considered. Eventual clinical implementation of urinary BC mutation markers can only be achieved by collecting more and stronger evidence. Combining different molecular assays might overcome current shortcomings of urinary mutation analysis.

Indexed as

BiomarkersDisease ProgressionDNA Mutational AnalysisDNA, NeoplasmHumansMutationNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalSensitivity and SpecificityUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBiomarkersDNA, Neoplasmbiomarkers#BladderCancer#blcsmmolecular diagnosticsmutationurinary bladder neoplasmsurine analysis

Identifiers

PMID32539176
PMCPMC7818192

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.