Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39095581›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2025

Molecular biomarkers of progression in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer - beyond conventional risk stratification.

Mitchell Olislagers, Florus C de Jong, Vera C Rutten, Joost L Boormans, Tokameh Mahmoudi, Tahlita C M Zuiverloon

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Stromal FAPClinical and translational medicine · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Mitchell Olislagers *Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Florus C de Jong *Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6853-5982
Vera C RuttenDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Joost L BoormansDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5127-0436
Tokameh MahmoudiDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Tahlita C M ZuiverloonDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. t.zuiverloon@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-4002-9006

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The global incidence of bladder cancer is more than half a million diagnoses each year. Bladder cancer can be categorized into non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), which accounts for ~75% of diagnoses, and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Up to 45% of patients with NMIBC develop disease progression to MIBC, which is associated with a poor outcome, highlighting a clinical need to identify these patients. Current risk stratification has a prognostic value, but relies solely on clinicopathological parameters that might not fully capture the complexity of disease progression. Molecular research has led to identification of multiple crucial players involved in NMIBC progression. Identified biomarkers of progression are related to cell cycle, MAPK pathways, apoptosis, tumour microenvironment, chromatin stability and DNA-damage response. However, none of these biomarkers has been prospectively validated. Reported gene signatures of progression do not improve NMIBC risk stratification. Molecular subtypes of NMIBC have improved our understanding of NMIBC progression, but these subtypes are currently unsuitable for clinical implementation owing to a lack of prospective validation, limited predictive value as a result of intratumour subtype heterogeneity, technical challenges, costs and turnaround time. Future steps include the development of consensus molecular NMIBC subtypes that might improve conventional clinicopathological risk stratification. Prospective implementation studies of biomarkers and the design of biomarker-guided clinical trials are required for the integration of molecular biomarkers into clinical practice.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionHumansNeoplasm InvasivenessNon-Muscle Invasive Bladder NeoplasmsPrognosisRisk AssessmentBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.