Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35248823›Full record

ArticleESMO open2022

Circulating tumour cells to drive the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

N Beije, I E de Kruijff, J J de Jong, S O Klaver, P de Vries, R A L Jacobs, D M Somford, E Te Slaa, A G van der Heijden, J Alfred Witjes and 11 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Network approach in liquidomics landscape.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2023
    Review
  12. Review
  13. 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.

N BeijeDepartment of Medical Oncology and Cancer Genomics Netherlands, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: n.beije@erasmusmc.nl.
I E de KruijffDepartment of Medical Oncology and Cancer Genomics Netherlands, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J J de JongDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
S O KlaverDepartment of Urology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
P de VriesDepartment of Urology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
R A L JacobsDepartment of Urology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
D M SomfordDepartment of Urology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
E Te SlaaDepartment of Urology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
A G van der HeijdenDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J Alfred WitjesDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
L M C L FossionDepartment of Urology, Maxima MC, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
E R BoevéDepartment of Urology, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J van der HoevenDepartment of Urology, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, The Netherlands.
H H E van MelickDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
C J WijburgDepartment of Urology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
H BickerstaffeDepartment of Urology, Bravis Hospital, Roosendaal, The Netherlands.
J W M MartensDepartment of Medical Oncology and Cancer Genomics Netherlands, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
R de WitDepartment of Medical Oncology and Cancer Genomics Netherlands, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J KraanDepartment of Medical Oncology and Cancer Genomics Netherlands, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
S SleijferDepartment of Medical Oncology and Cancer Genomics Netherlands, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J L BoormansDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for the treatment of nonmetastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). NAC is, however, underutilized in practice because of its associated limited overall survival (OS) benefit and significant treatment-related toxicity. We hypothesized that the absence of circulating tumour cells (CTCs) identifies MIBC patients with such a favourable prognosis that NAC may be withheld. PATIENTS AND

methodsThe CirGuidance study was an open-label, multicentre trial that included patients with clinical stage T2-T4aN0-N1M0 MIBC, scheduled for radical cystectomy. CTC-negative patients (no CTCs detectable using the CELLSEARCH system) underwent radical surgery without NAC; CTC-positive patients (≥1 detectable CTCs) were advised to receive NAC, followed by radical surgery. The primary endpoint was the 2-year OS in the CTC-negative group with a prespecified criterion for trial success of ≥75% (95% confidence interval (CI) ±5%).

resultsA total of 273 patients were enrolled. Median age was 69 years; median follow-up was 36 months. The primary endpoint of 2-year OS in the CTC-negative group was 69.5% (N = 203; 95% CI 62.6%-75.5%). Two-year OS was 58.2% in the CTC-positive group (N = 70; 95% CI 45.5%-68.9%). CTC-positive patients had a higher rate of cancer-related mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.61, 95% CI 1.05-2.45, P = 0.03] and disease relapse (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.28-2.73, P = 0.001) than CTC-negative patients. Explorative analyses suggested that CTC-positive patients who had received NAC (n = 22) survived longer than CTC-positive patients who had not (n = 48).

conclusionThe absence of CTCs in MIBC patients was associated with improved cancer-related mortality and a lower risk of disease relapse after cystectomy; however, their absence alone does not justify to withhold NAC. Exploratory analyses suggested that CTC-positive MIBC patients might derive more benefit from NAC.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NL3954; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/3954.

Indexed as

Neoplastic Cells, CirculatingUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAgedFemaleHumansMaleMusclesNeoadjuvant TherapyRecurrencecirculating tumour cellsCTCsliquid biopsymuscle-invasive bladder cancerneoadjuvant chemotherapy

Identifiers

PMID35248823
PMCPMC9058916

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.