Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34508246›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2022

Refining neoadjuvant therapy clinical trial design for muscle-invasive bladder cancer before cystectomy: a joint US Food and Drug Administration and Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network workshop.

Elaine Chang, Andrea B Apolo, Rick Bangs, Stephanie Chisolm, Vinay Duddalwar, Jason A Efstathiou, Kirsten B Goldberg, Donna E Hansel, Ashish M Kamat, Paul G Kluetz and 11 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. FDA Approval Summary: Durvalumab for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Urinary Biomarkers Objectively Measure Minimal Residual Disease in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

21 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

Elaine ChangCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA. Elaine.Chang@fda.hhs.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6255-2853
Andrea B ApoloGenitourinary Malignancies Branch, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9409-1836
Rick BangsGenitourinary Malignancies Branch, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0706-8775
Stephanie ChisolmBladder Cancer Advocacy Network, Education & Research, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6194-3163
Vinay DuddalwarDepartment of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4808-5715
Jason A EfstathiouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Kirsten B GoldbergOncology Center of Excellence, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8659-1240
Donna E HanselDepartment of Pathology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7860-4881
Ashish M KamatDepartment of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3546-9928
Paul G KluetzOncology Center of Excellence, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Seth P LernerDepartment of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Elizabeth PlimackDepartments of Hematology and Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Tatiana ProwellCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA.
Harpreet SinghCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA.
Daniel SuzmanCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA.
Evan Y YuDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Hui ZhangCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA.
Julia A BeaverOncology Center of Excellence, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Richard PazdurOncology Center of Excellence, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Chana Weinstock *Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA.
Matthew D Galsky *Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
United States Food and Drug Administration · USNational Cancer Institute · USBaylor College of Medicine · USBladder Cancer Advocacy Network · USCenter for Veterinary Medicine · USFox Chase Cancer Center · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USOregon Health & Science University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Southern California · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Bladder Cancer ProgramZIABC011351 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI APOLO, ANDREA · 2010 to 2025
$9.4M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The success of the use of novel therapies in the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma has contributed to growing interest in evaluating these therapies at earlier stages of the disease. However, trials evaluating these therapies in the neoadjuvant setting must have clearly defined study elements and appropriately selected end points to ensure the applicability of the trial and enable interpretation of the study results. To advance the development of rational trial design, a public workshop jointly sponsored by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network convened in August 2019. Clinicians, clinical trialists, radiologists, biostatisticians, patients, advocates and other stakeholders discussed key elements and end points when designing trials of neoadjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), identifying opportunities to refine eligibility, design and end points for neoadjuvant trials in MIBC. Although pathological complete response (pCR) is already being used as a co-primary end point, both individual-level and trial-level surrogacy for time-to-event end points, such as event-free survival or overall survival, remain incompletely characterized in MIBC. Additionally, use of pCR is limited by heterogeneity in pathological evaluation and the fact that the magnitude of pCR improvement that might translate into a meaningful clinical benefit remains unclear. Given existing knowledge gaps, capture of highly granular patient-related, tumour-related and treatment-related characteristics in the current generation of neoadjuvant MIBC trials will be critical to informing the design of future trials.

Indexed as

Neoadjuvant TherapyCarcinoma, Transitional CellClinical Trials as TopicHumansUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationUrinary Bladder Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34508246
OpenAlexW3196747859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.