Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37793077›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2023

Definitions, End Points, and Clinical Trial Designs for Bladder Cancer: Recommendations From the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer and the International Bladder Cancer Group.

Ashish M Kamat, Andrea B Apolo, Marek Babjuk, Trinity J Bivalacqua, Peter C Black, Roger Buckley, Matthew T Campbell, Eva Compérat, Jason A Efstathiou, Petros Grivas and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. End Points for the Next-Generation Bladder-Sparing Perioperative Trials for Patients With Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

24 authors.

Ashish M KamatDepartment of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0003-3546-9928
Andrea B ApoloCenter for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD.ORCID 0000-0001-9409-1836
Marek BabjukDepartment of Urology, Teaching Hospital Motol, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-3115-7428
Trinity J BivalacquaDepartment of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Peter C BlackDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.ORCID 0000-0002-2919-7068
Roger BuckleyDepartment of Urology, North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Matthew T CampbellDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0003-1915-4491
Eva CompératDepartment of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Jason A EfstathiouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0003-0996-0350
Petros GrivasDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington; Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA.ORCID 0000-0003-3965-3394
Shilpa GuptaDepartment of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH.ORCID 0000-0002-8775-503X
Neil J KurtzIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, NY.
Donald LammPatient Advocate, Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN), Bethesda, MD.
Seth P LernerBCG Oncology, Phoenix, AZ.ORCID 0000-0002-6379-2581
Roger LiScott Department of Urology, Dan L Duncan Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0003-1274-7200
David J McConkeyDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL.
Joan Palou RedortaJohns Hopkins Greenberg Bladder Cancer Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Thomas PowlesDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7760-4724
Sarah P PsutkaQueen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4207-7490
Neal ShoreDepartment of Urology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA.ORCID 0000-0001-5767-0548
Gary D SteinbergCarolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC.
Richard SylvesterDepartment of Urology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0003-0529-862X
J Alfred WitjesEAU NMIBC Guidelines Panel, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Matthew D GalskyRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7655-9378

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere is a significant unmet need for new and efficacious therapies in urothelial cancer (UC). To provide recommendations on appropriate clinical trial designs across disease settings in UC, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) and the International Bladder Cancer Group (IBCG) convened a multidisciplinary, international consensus panel.

methodsThrough open communication and scientific debate in small- and whole-group settings, surveying, and responses to clinical questionnaires, the consensus panel developed recommendations on optimal definitions of the disease state, end points, trial design, evaluations, sample size calculations, and pathology considerations for definitive studies in low- and intermediate-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), high-risk NMIBC, muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, and metastatic UC. The expert panel also solicited input on the recommendations through presentations and public discussion during an open session at the 2021 Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN) Think Tank (held virtually).

resultsThe consensus panel developed a set of stage-specific bladder cancer clinical trial design recommendations, which are summarized in the table that accompanies this text.

conclusionThese recommendations developed by the SITC-IBCG Bladder Cancer Clinical Trial Design consensus panel will encourage uniformity among studies and facilitate drug development in this disease.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Transitional CellUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAdjuvants, ImmunologicClinical Trials as TopicHumansImmunotherapyAdjuvants, Immunologic

Identifiers

PMID37793077
PMCPMC10713193

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.