ReviewFrontiers in oncology2022
Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer biomarkers beyond morphology.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- ZEB1-AS1 and miR-200b-3p Expression in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Pathological Correlates.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Contemporary outcomes in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a large European multicentre study.BJU international · 2025Article
- Molecular biomarkers of progression in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer - beyond conventional risk stratification.Nature reviews. Urology · 2025Review
- Exploring a Desirable Quadr-mRNAs Panel for Non-invasive and Ultrasensitive Bladder Cancer Diagnosis:Current medicinal chemistry · 2025Article
- Biomarkers for predicting bladder cancer therapy response.Oncology research · 2025Review
- Homologous recombination mRNAs (RAD21, RAD50 and BARD1) have a potentially poor prognostic role in ERBB2-low bladder cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- HER2 Expression in Bladder Cancer: A Focused View on Its Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Predictive Role.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) still represents a challenge in decision-making and clinical management since prognostic and predictive biomarkers of response to treatment are still under investigation. In addition to the risk factors defined by EORTC guidelines, histological features have also been considered key variables able to impact on recurrence and progression in bladder cancer. Conversely, the role of genomic rearrangements or expression of specific proteins at tissue level need further assessment in NMIBC. As with muscle-invasive cancer, NMIBC is a heterogeneous disease, characterized by genomic instability, varying rates of mutation and a wide range of protein tissue expression. In this Review, we summarized the recent evidence on prognostic and predictive tissue biomarkers in NMIBC, beyond morphological parameters, outlining how they could affect tumor biology and consequently its behavior during clinical care. Our aim was to facilitate clinical evaluation of promising biomarkers that may be employed to better stratify patients. We described the most common molecular events and immunohistochemical protein expressions linked to recurrence and progression. Moreover, we discussed the link between available treatments and molecular drivers that could be predictive of clinical response. In conclusion, we foster further investigations with particular focus on immunohistochemical evaluation of tissue biomarkers, a promising and cost-effective tool for daily practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.