Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35528782›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2022

Comparative Outcomes of Primary Versus Recurrent High-risk Non-muscle-invasive and Primary Versus Secondary Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer After Radical Cystectomy: Results from a Retrospective Multicenter Study.

Nico C Grossmann, Pawel Rajwa, Fahad Quhal, Frederik König, Hadi Mostafaei, Ekaterina Laukhtina, Keiichiro Mori, Satoshi Katayama, Reza Sari Motlagh, Christian D Fankhauser and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Exploring the molecular mechanism of Xiao Ji (Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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 18 institutions in 15 countries.

Nico C GrossmannDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Pawel RajwaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Fahad QuhalDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Frederik KönigDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Hadi MostafaeiDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Ekaterina LaukhtinaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Keiichiro MoriDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Satoshi KatayamaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Reza Sari MotlaghDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Christian D FankhauserDepartment of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Agostino MatteiDepartment of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Marco MoschiniDepartment of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Piotr ChlostaDepartment of Urology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland.
Bas W G van RhijnDepartment of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jeremy Y C TeohS.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Eva CompératDepartment of Pathology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
Marek BabjukDepartment of Urology, Hospital Motol and Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Mohammad AbufarajDivision of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Pierre I KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Benjamin PradereDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna · ATLuzerner Kantonsspital · CHAl-Ahliyya Amman University · JOCharles University · CZChinese University of Hong Kong · HKJagiellonian University · PLJikei University School of Medicine · JPKing Fahad Specialist Hospital · SAMcGill University Health Centre · CAMedical University of Silesia · PLOkayama University · JPSechenov University · RUTabriz University of Medical Sciences · IRThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity of Jordan · JOVienna General Hospital · ATVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Radical cystectomy (RC) is indicated in primary or secondary muscle-invasive bladder cancer (primMIBC, secMIBC) and in primary or recurrent high- or very high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (primHR-NMIBC, recHR-NMIBC). The optimal timing for RC along the disease spectrum of nonmetastatic urothelial carcinoma remains unclear. Objective: To compare outcomes after RC between patients with primHR-NMIBC, recHR-NMIBC, primMIBC, and secMIBC. Design setting and participants: This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with clinically nonmetastatic bladder cancer (BC) treated with RC. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We assessed oncological outcomes for patients who underwent RC according to the natural history of their BC. primHR-NMIBC and primMIBC were defined as no prior history of BC, and recHR-NMIBC and secMIBC as previously treated NMIBC that recurred or progressed to MIBC, respectively. Log-rank analysis was used to compare survival outcomes, and univariable and multivariable Cox and logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors for survival. Results and limitations: Among the 908 patients included, 211 (23%) had primHR-NMIBC, 125 (14%) had recHR-NMIBC, 404 (44%) had primMIBC, and 168 (19%) had secMIBC. Lymph node involvement and pathological upstaging were more frequent in the secMIBC group than in the other groups ( Conclusions: Patients with recHR-NMIBC and primHR-MIBC had similar survival outcomes, while those with sec-MIBC had the worst outcomes. Therefore, early radical intervention may be indicated in selected patients, and potentially neoadjuvant systemic therapies in some patients with recHR-NMIBC. Patient summary: We compared cancer outcomes in different bladder cancer scenarios in a large, multinational series of patients who underwent removal of the bladder with curative intent. We found that patients who experienced recurrence of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) had similar survival outcomes to those with initial muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), while patients who experienced progression of NMIBC to MIBC had the worst outcomes. Selected patients with non-muscle-invasive disease may benefit from early radical surgery or from perioperative chemotherapy or immunotherapy.

Indexed as

Disease progressionMycobacterium bovisRecurrenceSurvivalUrinary bladder neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID35528782
PMCPMC9068727
OpenAlexW4224512027

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.