Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34467237›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology open science2021

Time to Turn on the Blue Lights: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Photodynamic Diagnosis for Bladder Cancer.

Rajan Veeratterapillay, Paul Gravestock, Arjun Nambiar, Ameet Gupta, Omar Aboumarzouk, Bhavan Rai, Luke Vale, Rakesh Heer

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European urology open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Advances in the management of localized bladder cancers.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rajan VeeratterapillayDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
Paul GravestockDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
Arjun NambiarDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
Ameet GuptaDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
Omar AboumarzoukDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
Bhavan RaiDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
Luke ValeHealth Economics Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Rakesh HeerDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
Freeman Hospital · GBNewcastle University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextWhite light (WL) cystoscopy and transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) comprise the current gold standard technique for detecting and grading bladder cancer. However, with WL cystoscopy, recurrence following initial TURBT is high, and identification of smaller tumours and carcinoma in situ is poor. Photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) has been developed to improve the detection of bladder.

objectiveTo assess the effect of PDD-guided TURBT compared with WL on recurrence rates (RRs) in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature from inception to April 2020 using Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was undertaken. Randomised control trials comparing TURBT undertaken with PDD to WL that reported RRs of at least 12 mo were included in the analysis. The primary outcomes were RRs at 12 and 24 mo. The secondary outcomes were reported adverse effects. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twelve randomised controlled trials (2288 patients) were included for the meta-analysis. PDD was found to reduce RRs at 12 mo (RR 0.73, confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.88) and 24 mo (RR 0.75, CI 0.62-0.91). There was an increased risk of recurrence for patients undergoing WL at 12 mo (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14, CI 1.05-1.23) and 24 mo (HR 1.25, CI 1.15-1.35). Two studies reported recurrence data at 60 mo showing statistically significant outcomes in favour of PDD: one showed lower RRs for PDD (49% PDD vs 68% WL), whilst the other showed increased recurrence-free survival (68.2% PDD vs 57.3% WL). Adverse effects appeared to be minimal, though poorly reported. A GRADE analysis showed the evidence to be of moderate certainty overall.

conclusionsThis systematic review found that PDD reduced RRs and improved recurrence-free survival compared with WL in NMIBC over at least 2-yr follow-up. These effects may persist up to 5 yr. Further research in a pragmatic study looking at longer-term outcomes beyond 24 mo will help guide recommendations on clinical adoption. PATIENT SUMMARY: This review suggests that photodynamic diagnosis, compared with white light cystoscopy, improves recurrence-free survival in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer over at least 2 yr of follow-up. However, confirmatory pragmatic studies with longer-term outcomes are required for its clinical adoption.

Indexed as

CystoscopyFluorescenceRecurrence-free survivalRecurrence rateUrinary bladder neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34467237
PMCPMC8385287
OpenAlexW3185149065

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.