ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2021
Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients with localized or locally advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy involving gemcitabine-cisplatin and high dose-intensity MVAC.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant PD-1 inhibitors or PD-L1 inhibitors for muscle invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cisplatin Based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Pooled it
- Neoadjuvant therapy with camrelizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A multi-center, single-arm, phase 2 study.Cancer medicine · 2023Trial
- The impact of relative dose intensity on pathological complete response in neoadjuvant chemotherapy of muscle-invasive urothelial cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Outcomes of Patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Undergoing Radical Cystectomy: A Retrospective Analysis of Health Insurance Claims Data in Germany.Oncology and therapy · 2026Article
- The evolving role of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in urothelial carcinoma.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Bladder Cancer: Ushering in a New Era of Treatment-A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.European urology open science · 2025Review
- The practical roadmap for peri-cystectomy approaches in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness of perioperative durvalumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer in the United States.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of high dose-intensity combination of methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin and cisplatin (HD MVAC) with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) as a neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) or locally advanced upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC). PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted for patients with UC (cT2-4aN0-1M0) who received NAC from January 2011 and December 2017 at Asan Medical Center. Pathologic complete response (pCR), down-staging (< ypT2 and no N upstaging), disease-free survival (DFS), OS and safety were compared for each regimen.
resultsOut of a total of 277 patients, 176 patients received GC and 41 patients received HD MVAC. With the exception of age (patients receiving HD MVAC were younger; p = 0.002), other baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. pCR rates were 27.0% for GC and 22.6% for HD MVAC (p = 0.62), and down-staging rate was 50.8% for GC and 58.1% for HD MVAC (p = 0.47). There were no differences in OS (72.1% vs 73.1% for GC vs HD MVAC; p = 0.58) and DFS (54.9% vs 63.3% for GC vs HD MVAC; p = 0.21) at 3 years. HD MVAC with prophylactic G-CSF was associated with a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia (p < 0.001) than GC. The NAC regimen was not an independent prognostic factor for OS.
conclusionOncologic outcomes were not significantly different between the GC and HD MVAC when used as NAC in MIBC/UTUC.
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.