ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2020
Determinants of neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2020. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of clinical stage T3/T4 bladder cancer: a review.World journal of urology · 2025Review
- Treatment Patterns and Radical Cystectomy Outcomes in Patients Diagnosed With Urothelial Nonmetastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer in the United States.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- The Current Progress and Future Options of Multiple Therapy and Potential Biomarkers for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.Biomedicines · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by radical cystectomy (RC) is standard of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, NAC is used in less than 20% of patients with MIBC. Our goal is to investigate factors that contribute to underutilization NAC to facilitate more routine incorporation into clinical practice. Materials and Methods: We identified 5,915 patients diagnosed with cT2-T3N0M0 MIBC who underwent RC between 2004 and 2014 from the National Cancer Database. Univariate and multivariable models were created to identify variables associated with NAC utilization. Results: Only 18.8% of patients received NAC during the study period. On univariate analyses, NAC utilization was more likely at academic hospitals, US South and Midwest (p<0.05). Higher Charlson score was associated with decrease use of NAC (p<0.05). On multivariate analysis, treatment in academic hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 1.367; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.186-1.576), in the Midwest (OR, 1.538; 95% CI, 1.268-1.977) and South (OR, 1.424; 95% CI, 1.139-1.781) were independently associated with NAC utilization. Older age (75 to 84 years old; OR, 0.532; 95% CI, 0.427-0.664) and higher Charlson score (OR, 0.607; 95% CI, 0.439-0.839) were associated with decreased NAC utilization. Sixty-eight percent of patients did not receive NAC because it was not planned and only 2.5% of patients had contraindications for NAC treatment. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that NAC is underutilized. Decreased utilization of NAC was associated with older patients and higher Charlson score. This underutilization may be related to practice patterns as very few patients have true contraindications.
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.