ArticleThe Journal of urology2021
The Diagnostic Performance of Cxbladder Resolve, Alone and in Combination with Other Cxbladder Tests, in the Identification and Priority Evaluation of Patients at Risk for Urothelial Carcinoma.
Article in The Journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circulating Tumor Function: A Systems Biology Framework for Liquid Biopsy in Genitourinary Cancers.Genes · 2026Review
- Integrating clinically actionable biomarkers into bladder cancer care - recommendations from the International Bladder Cancer Group.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Performance of Urine Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization for Diagnosis of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of urinary PENK methylation test for urothelial and other cancers: A prospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Current perspectives of urine-based tests for screening and post-treatment monitoring of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Review
- Analytical Validation of CxbladderDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Acu-URO17 is a highly sensitive and specific bladder cancer biomarker.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Clinical Validation of the Proenkephalin (European urology open science · 2024Article
- Potential of an mRNA-Based Urine Assay (XpertBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Article
- Urinary Analysis ofThe Journal of urology · 2023Article
- A Liquid Biopsy in Bladder Cancer-The Current Landscape in Urinary Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCxbladder (Cxb) tests combine genomic biomarkers in urine with phenotypic and clinical data to classify hematuria patients into those at low/high probability of urothelial carcinoma (UC). Cxbladder Resolve (CxbR) is designed for use after Cxb Triage (CxbT) and Detect (CxbD), where CxbT-positive tests reflex to CxbD and CxbD-positive to CxbR to identify patients at high probability of high-impact tumors (HIT; high grade Ta, Tis or T1-T3). This study validated the diagnostic performance of CxbR in identifying HIT, and validated the algorithm of Cxb tests to segregate high-impact from low-impact tumors. MATERIALS AND
methodsCxbR was developed in 863 hematuria patients in 3 studies in United States, Australia and New Zealand. CxbR, separately and combined with other Cxb tests, was validated in a prospective, observational U.S. study in 548 hematuria patients. All UC diagnoses were confirmed by histopathology.
resultsIn the development data set, CxbR sensitivity was 92.4% (95% CI 83.3-96.7) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 86.8-97.2) for identifying HIT within the high priority category. During external validation, sequential Cxb tests correctly ruled out 87.6% of patients from further workup (negative predictive value 99.4%); 100% of HIT were correctly identified (specificity 96.3%), and 3 low-grade tumors were missed. In both studies, all patients with HIT were correctly assigned to prioritized evaluation.
conclusionsCxbR has high sensitivity and specificity, correctly identifying all HIT. Sequential Cxb tests accurately segregate patients with a low vs high probability of HIT, focusing resources on those patients, with a diagnostic yield 4.8-fold higher than American Urological Association guideline stratification.
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.