ReviewTranslational cancer research2024
Bladder sparing management for muscle-invasive bladder cancer after a complete clinical response: ready for prime time?-a narrative review.
Review in Translational cancer research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: A standard of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by radical cystectomy (RC). Given recent improvements in NAC and the morbidity associated with RC, bladder-sparing therapy has been investigated as a promising treatment for patients with MIBC who experience a complete clinical response (CCR) to systemic therapy. However, clinical staging is unreliable, making it challenging to determine ideal candidates for bladder-sparing therapy. Our primary objective is to review the efficacy of NAC, strategies for determining a CCR as a surrogate for a complete pathologic response, and the emerging role of imaging, tumor genomics, and biomarkers in selecting candidates for bladder-sparing therapy. Methods: We surveyed the literature for studies investigating the outcomes of current treatment modalities for MIBC and methods for determining a CCR following systemic therapy as well as the impact this has on pathologic staging. Studies employing imaging, tumor biomarkers, and genomics were included. Key Content and Findings: Clinical staging with cystoscopy or transurethral resection shows significant discordance with final pathology, with high rates of understaging. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has shown strong utility in determining the presence of MIBC, but it has yet to reliably identify CCR. Meanwhile, somatic DNA damage repair mutations and biomarkers such as circulating and urinary tumor DNA are strong predictors of recurrence, showing promise in predicting and monitoring a CCR to systemic therapy. Multiple ongoing trials are currently assessing the use of biomarkers and genomic analyses in determining eligibility for bladder-sparing therapy. Conclusions: While no one method has reliably demonstrated the ability to detect a true CCR, a multimodal approach involving imaging, biomarkers, and genomic analyses holds promise. We eagerly await the results of clinical trials investigating these tools, which may allow for the safe recommendation of bladder-sparing therapy.
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.