Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32981193›Full record

ArticleBJU international2021

Comparative effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in bladder and upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma.

David D'Andrea, Surena Matin, Peter C Black, Firas G Petros, Homayoun Zargar, Colin P Dinney, Michael S Cookson, Wassim Kassouf, Marc A Dall'Era, John S McGrath and 14 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJU international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. [Urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

David D'AndreaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-1625-1077
Surena MatinDepartment of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1638-1445
Peter C BlackDepartment of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Firas G PetrosDepartment of Urology and Kidney Transplant, Eleanor N. Dana Cancer Center, The University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3062-0780
Homayoun ZargarDepartment of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Colin P DinneyDepartment of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Michael S CooksonDepartment of Urology, Center and The Stephenson Cancer Center, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Wassim KassoufDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Marc A Dall'EraDepartment of Urology, Davis Medical Center, University of California at Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2301-2683
John S McGrathDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9416-9912
Jonathan L WrightDepartment of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Andrew C ThorpeDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Todd M MorganDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Jeffrey M HolzbeierleinDepartment of Urology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Trinity J BivalacquaDepartment of Urology, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Srikala S SridharDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Scott NorthDepartment of Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Daniel A BarocasDepartment of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Yair LotanDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5692-2723
Andrew J StephensonGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Bas W van RhijnDepartment of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philippe E SpiessDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Siamak DaneshmandDepartment of Urology, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6224-9598
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the differential response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB) compared to upper tract urothelial carcioma (UTUC) treated with radical surgery. PATIENTS AND

methodsData from 1299 patients with UCB and 276 with UTUC were obtained from multicentric collaborations. The association of disease location (UCB vs UTUC) with pathological complete response (pCR, defined as a post-treatment pathological stage ypT0N0) and pathological objective response (pOR, defined as ypT0-Ta-Tis-T1N0) after NAC was evaluated using logistic regression analyses. The association with overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was evaluated using Cox regression analyses.

resultsA pCR was found in 250 (19.2%) patients with UCB and in 23 (8.3%) with UTUC (P < 0.01). A pOR was found in 523 (40.3%) patients with UCB and in 133 (48.2%) with UTUC (P = 0.02). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, patients with UTUC were less likely to have a pCR (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.70; P < 0.01) and more likely to have a pOR (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.89-2.08; P < 0.01). On univariable Cox regression analyses, UTUC was associated with better OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-0.99, P = 0.04) and CSS (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.83; P < 0.01). On multivariable Cox regression analyses, UTUC remained associated with CSS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.82; P < 0.01), but not with OS.

conclusionsOur present findings suggest that the benefit of NAC in UTUC is similar to that found in UCB. These data can be used as a benchmark to contextualise survival outcomes and plan future trial design with NAC in urothelial cancer.

Indexed as

AgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Transitional CellCisplatinComparative Effectiveness ResearchCystectomyDeoxycytidineDoxorubicinFemaleGemcitabineHumansKidney NeoplasmsMaleMethotrexateMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyCisplatinDeoxycytidineDoxorubicinGemcitabineMethotrexateVinblastinebladder cancer#BladderCancer#blcsmneoadjuvant chemotherapyresponsesurvivalupper tract urothelial carcinoma#uroonc#utuc

Identifiers

PMID32981193
PMCPMC8246716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.