ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
A clinical evaluation of an
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bladder cancer precision-cut tumor slices (PCTS) preserve functional immune microenvironment enabling ex vivo drug evaluation.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical Utility of an Ex Vivo Functional Test in Personalized Cancer Treatment.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Shaping the future one slice at a time: How 3D organotypic tumour slice models are driving drug discovery in ovarian cancer.Translational oncology · 2026Review
- Conceptualization of an Ex Vivo Organ Culture (EVOC) Model for Human Seminoma: A Pilot Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Approaches to modeling cancer metastasis: from bench to bedside.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Methods: A multicenter, prospective, single-arm observational trial. Samples were obtained from patients with newly diagnosed bladder cancer who underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumor and from core needle biopsies of patients with metastatic cancer. The tumors were cut into 250 μM slices and cultured within 24 h, then incubated for 96 h with vehicle or intended to treat drug. The cultures were then fixed and stained to analyze their morphology and cell viability. Each EVOC was given a score based on cell viability, level of damage, and Ki67 proliferation, and the scores were correlated with the patients' clinical response assessed by pathology or Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Results: The cancer tissue and microenvironment, including endothelial and immune cells, were preserved at high viability with continued cell division for 5 days, demonstrating active cell signaling dynamics. A total of 34 cancer samples were tested by the platform and were correlated with clinical results. A higher EVOC score was correlated with better clinical response. The EVOC system showed a predictive specificity of 77.7% (7/9, 95% CI 0.4-0.97) and a sensitivity of 96% (24/25, 95% CI 0.80-0.99). Conclusion: EVOC cultured for 5 days showed high sensitivity and specificity for predicting clinical response to therapy among patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and other solid tumors.
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.