Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36059550›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2022

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy for stage II-III muscle invasive bladder cancer.

Hualin Chen, Wenjie Yang, Xiaoqiang Xue, Yingjie Li, Zhaoheng Jin, Zhigang Ji

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Chemoimmunotherapy synergism: mechanisms and clinical applications.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hualin ChenDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Wenjie YangDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xiaoqiang XueDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yingjie LiDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zhaoheng JinDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zhigang JiDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNPeking Union Medical College Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Considering the striking evidence revealed by immunotherapy in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer, investigators have explored neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Currently, there have been a large number of studies reporting varied efficacy and safety of these approaches. Herein, we pooled the available evidence in terms of oncological outcomes (pathological complete response [pCR] and pathological partial response [pPR]) and safety outcomes (immune-related adverse events [irAEs], treatment-related adverse events [TRAEs]), through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting abstracts to identify relevant studies up to June 2022. Studies were included if they evaluated the neoadjuvant immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy in MIBC and reported at least the pCR. Results: A total of 22 records involving 843 patients were included. For pCR of immunotherapy, the pooled rate of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy and dual-ICIs therapy was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.3% - 32.8%) and 32.1% (95%CI: 20.6% - 43.7%), respectively. For pCR of chemoimmunotherapy, the overall pooled rate was 42.6% (95% CI: 34.9% - 50.2%). Subgroup of gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) plus ICI had a pCR rate of 41.7% (95%CI: 35.8% - 47.5%). In terms of safety, the pooled rate of Grade≥3 irAEs was 11.7% (95% CI: 6.5%-16.9%). In subgroup analysis, the Grade≥3 irAEs rate of ICI monotherapy, dual-ICIs therapy, and GC plus ICI therapy was 7.4% (95% CI: 4.3%-10.5%), 30.3% (95% CI: 15.3%-45.3%), and 14.5% (95% CI: 3.5% - 25.4%), respectively. Besides, the pooled Grade≥3 TRAEs rate for chemoimmunotherapy was 32.4% (95% CI: 13.1% - 51.6%). Conclusion: Neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy were effective and safe in the treatment of MIBC. Compared to ICI monotherapy, dual-ICIs therapy or chemoimmunotherapy can improve the response rate, while increasing the morbidity of Grade≥ 3 irAEs or Grade≥ 3 TRAEs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD4202233771.

Indexed as

ImmunotherapyMusclesNeoadjuvant TherapyUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsCisplatinHumansNeoplasm StagingCisplatinchemoimmunotherapyimmunotherapymeta-analysismuscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC)neoadjuvant

Identifiers

PMID36059550
PMCPMC9428578
OpenAlexW4292313263

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.