Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34900663›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021

Curative Effect and Survival Assessment Comparing Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Versus Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin and Cisplatin as Neoadjuvant Therapy for Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Tiange Wu, Yuqing Wu, Shuqiu Chen, Jianping Wu, Weidong Zhu, Hui Liu, Ming Chen, Bin Xu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Cardioprotective Effect of Hydroalcohol Extract of Andaliman (Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tiange WuSurgical Research Center, Institute of Urology, Medical School of Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Yuqing WuSurgical Research Center, Institute of Urology, Medical School of Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Shuqiu ChenDepartment of Urology, Zhongda Hospital Affiliated to Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Jianping WuDepartment of Urology, Zhongda Hospital Affiliated to Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Weidong ZhuDepartment of Urology, Zhongda Hospital Affiliated to Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Hui LiuDepartment of Urology, Binhai County People's Hospital, Yancheng, China.
Ming ChenDepartment of Urology, Zhongda Hospital Affiliated to Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Bin XuSurgical Research Center, Institute of Urology, Medical School of Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Zhongda Hospital Southeast University · CNBinzhou People's Hospital · CNSoutheast University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeoadjuvant chemotherapy has been accepted as an effective curative treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients and has resulted in better survival outcomes than radical cystectomy or a cisplatin-based regimen. In the present study, we aimed to compare the two most commonly used cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapies, gemcitabine plus cisplatin and methotrexate plus vinblastine plus doxorubicin plus cisplatin, by summarizing and analyzing clinical data and outcomes of published research.

methodsWe searched for qualified studies that compared these two types of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, including 4 randomized controlled trials and 14 retrospective studies. Data and information on pathological responses and long-term survival studies were extracted and analyzed separately.

resultsA total of 18 studies with 3116 patients were selected from 1188 studies, which contained data on pathological complete response, pathological partial response, and overall survival. In contrast to the results of previous studies, there was no significant difference in pathological complete response (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.15), pathological partial response (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.14), and overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.17) between GC and MVAC in this meta-analysis.

conclusionNo significant differences were observed between GC and MVAC in the muscle-invasive bladder cancer treatment due to the similar curative effect and parallel long survival outcomes due to the similar curative effect and parallel long survival outcomes. The priority selection of GC or MVAC in the clinic should be guided by further investigation, and the clinical standard strategy still counts on the results of more randomized controlled trials in the future.

Indexed as

bladder cancergemcitabine plus cisplatinmethotrexate plus vinblastine plus doxorubicin plus cisplatinneoadjuvant chemotherapypathological response

Identifiers

PMID34900663
PMCPMC8656312
OpenAlexW3217252694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.