Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35446917›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival of patients with T2-4aN0M0 bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis according to EAU COVID-19 recommendation.

Dong Hyuk Kang, Kang Su Cho, Young Joon Moon, Doo Yong Chung, Hae Do Jung, Joo Yong Lee

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dong Hyuk KangDepartment of Urology, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Kang Su ChoDepartment of Urology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Young Joon MoonDepartment of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Doo Yong ChungDepartment of Urology, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Hae Do JungDepartment of Urology, Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Medicine, Gunpo, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-8287-585X
Joo Yong LeeDepartment of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3470-1767
Yonsei University · KRInha University · KRWonkwang University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn the context of the COVID-19 outbreak, the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines Rapid Reaction Group provided recommendations to manage muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) based on priority levels: neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) should be avoided for patients with T2-3N0M0 MIBC. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of NAC compared with radical cystectomy (RC) alone in improving the overall survival (OS) of patients with T2-4aN0M0 MIBC. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. The primary outcome was OS of patients with T2-4aN0M0 MIBC, and the secondary outcome was OS of patients with only T2N0M0 MIBC.

resultsEight studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, the quality of all studies was relatively high, and little publication bias was demonstrated. The OS was significantly better in the NAC with RC group than in RC alone (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92; p = 0.002). A subgroup analysis was performed on only patients with T2N0M0 MIBC, and five studies were included. There was no difference in the OS between the NAC with RC and the RC alone groups (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01 p = 0.06).

conclusionsAs recommended by the EAU guidelines Rapid Reaction Group, patients with T2N0M0 MIBC should strongly consider omitting NAC until the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether to omit NAC in T3-4aN0M0 MIBC needs further discussion, and studies targeting only T2-3N0M0 MIBC are expected to proceed further.

Indexed as

COVID-19Urinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrologyCystectomyFemaleHumansMaleNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm InvasivenessPandemicsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35446917
PMCPMC9022827
OpenAlexW4224263873

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.