ArticleScientific reports2020
Recurring urothelial carcinomas show genomic rearrangements incompatible with a direct relationship.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Bladder cancer subtypes exhibit limited plasticity across different microenvironments and in metastases.Experimental hematology & oncology · 2025Article
- Urinary comprehensive genomic profiling predicts urothelial carcinoma recurrence and identifies responders to intravesical therapy.Molecular oncology · 2024Article
- Reconstructing Phylogenetic Relationship in Bladder Cancer: A Methodological Overview.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We used the fact that patients with non-muscle invasive bladder tumors show local recurrences and multiple tumors to study re-initiation of tumor growth from the same urothelium. By extensive genomic analyses we show that tumors from the same patient are clonal. We show that gross genomic chromosomal aberrations may be detected in one tumor, only to be undetected in a recurrent tumor. By analyses of incompatible changes i.e., genomic alterations that cannot be reversed, we show that almost all tumors from a single patient may show such changes, thus the tumors cannot have originated from each other. As recurring tumors share both genomic alterations and driver gene mutations, these must have been present in the urothelium in periods with no tumor growth. We present a model that includes a growing and evolving field of urothelial cells that occasionally, and locally, produce bursts of cellular growth leading to overt tumors.
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.