ArticleCancers2022
Does Bladder Cancer with Inchworm Sign Indicate Better Prognosis after TURBT?
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of VI-RADS scoring criteria for predicting oncological outcomes in bladder cancer.World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inchworm sign is considered to be a characteristic finding in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Nevertheless, pathologically diagnosed muscle invasive bladder cancers (MIBCs) are occasionally diagnosed from tissue obtained by transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) in patients with inchworm sign. Methods: We retrospectively investigated the factors related to muscle invasive status in bladder cancer associated with inchworm sign and the role of inchworm sign in tumor outcomes following TURBT. Results: Of the 109 patients with inchworm sign, 94 (86.2%) and 15 (13.8%) were NMIBC and MIBC, respectively. Non-papillary tumors (hazard ratio (HR): 9.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.07−44.10; p < 0.01) and tumors located in the bladder neck (HR: 7.73, 95% CI: 1.83−32.76; p < 0.01) were significant predictors of MIBC in bladder cancer with inchworm sign. Furthermore, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and progression-free survival were compared between patients with NMIBC with and without inchworm sign; however, no significant differences were found. In patients with NMIBC with inchworm sign, positive urine cytology was a prognostic factor for RFS (HR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.04−3.48; p = 0.04). Conclusions: In bladder cancer with inchworm sign, 86.2% were NMIBC. Even in the case of inchworm sign, the presence of a non-papillary tumor or a bladder neck tumor before TURBT should be noted because of the possibility of MIBC. In this study, the inchworm sign was not a prognostic factor in patients with NMIBC.
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.