SynthesisAnnals of medicine2023
Three versus four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Treatment NLR and SII Associations with Response and Progression-Free Survival After Neoadjuvant Disitamab Vedotin Plus PD-1 Blockade in Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Real-World Cohort Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Neoadjuvant disitamab vedotin (RC-48) plus a PD-1 inhibitor in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a multicenter real-world study with stratification by HER2 expression and tertiary lymphoid structures.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Observational
- Bladder Cancer: Uncovering the Predictive Role of NOTCH as an Emerging Candidate Biomarker for Therapeutic Strategies.Cancers · 2025Review
- The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on survival outcomes subsequent to radical cystectomy in pathological T0 bladder cancer patients: A multicenter large-scale analysis.Investigative and clinical urology · 2025Article
- Neoadjuvant treatment patterns and biomarker selection in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Integrated single-cell genomics, transcriptomics, and pathomics to identify potential biomarkers in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Optimal Number of Cycles of First-line Platinum-based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.In vivo (Athens, Greece)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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe optimal cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of three and four cycles of NAC in the treatment of MIBC through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. MATERIALS AND
methodsRelevant studies were systematically collected and reviewed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science Databases, and the Cochrane Library. Relative ratios (RRs), Hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate outcome measures. Studies comparing the pathological response and prognosis of three versus four cycles of NAC for MIBC were included.
resultsFive studies were included in this meta-analysis, including 2190 patients, of whom 1016 underwent three cycles of NAC and 1174 underwent four cycles of NAC. All studies were retrospective cohort studies. We found that 4 cycles of NAC had significantly better cancer-specific survival than 3 cycles (HR = 1.31, 95%CI,1.03-1.67,
conclusionsThree and four cycles of NAC had similar pathological responses and prognosis for MIBC, although the cancer-specific survival rate of four cycles was better than that of three cycles.
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.