Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35282497›Full record

ReviewActa clinica Croatica2022

REVIEW OF THE BLADDER CANCER MOLECULAR CLASSIFICATION PROPOSED: A NEW ERA - NEW TAXONOMY.

Šoip Šoipi, Majda Vučić, Borislav Spajić, Božo Krušlin, Miroslav Tomić, Monika Ulamec

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta clinica Croatica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Šoip Šoipi1Department of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Zagreb, Croatia; 2Ljudevit Jurak Department of Pathology and Cytology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Zagreb, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia;4Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Majda Vučić1Department of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Zagreb, Croatia; 2Ljudevit Jurak Department of Pathology and Cytology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Zagreb, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia;4Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Borislav Spajić1Department of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Zagreb, Croatia; 2Ljudevit Jurak Department of Pathology and Cytology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Zagreb, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia;4Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Božo Krušlin1Department of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Zagreb, Croatia; 2Ljudevit Jurak Department of Pathology and Cytology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Zagreb, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia;4Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Miroslav Tomić1Department of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Zagreb, Croatia; 2Ljudevit Jurak Department of Pathology and Cytology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Zagreb, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia;4Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Monika Ulamec1Department of Urology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Zagreb, Croatia; 2Ljudevit Jurak Department of Pathology and Cytology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Zagreb, Croatia; 3Department of Pathology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia;4Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
University Hospital Centre Zagreb · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The management of bladder cancer patients largely depends on pathologic staging and grading, and current morphological classification does not always show the individual patient's risk. Despite modern surgical techniques, pre- and postoperative therapies, clinical outcomes of these patients have not changed over decades. Today, there are new biomarkers for bladder cancer showing changes in tumor biology and progression, as a result of changes in the pathways affecting cell signaling, proliferation, apoptosis, epigenetic changes, angiogenesis, and modulation of host immune response. Assessment of multiple biomarkers associated with those pathways offers new understanding of tumor behavior while identifying important panels of predicting patient management and outcomes. In this review, the most important molecules and basics of the novel molecular classification of bladder cancer are presented.

Indexed as

Urinary Bladder NeoplasmsBiomarkersEpigenesis, GeneticHumansNeovascularization, PathologicBiomarkersBladder cancerMolecular classification

Identifiers

PMID35282497
PMCPMC8907963
OpenAlexW4220865587

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.