ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2025
New Bladder Preservation Strategies in Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder.
Review in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
background17 500 persons receive a new diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in Germany each year. Radical cystectomy is performed for muscle-invasive and for non-muscle-invasive, recurrent, high-risk tumors. Because this procedure carries a perioperative complication rate of 30-40% and impairs the patients' quality of life, options have been developed for intravesical and systemic bladder-preserving treatment.
methodsThis review is based on pertinent publications (up to July 2024) on bladder-preserving treatment methods that were retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases.
resultsMultiple clinical phase II-III trials and observational studies are available. Carefully selected patients with recurrent, non-muscle-invasive, high-risk urothelial carcinoma received bladder-preserving treatment of the following kinds: intravesical chemotherapy with or without hyperthermia (52-65% progressionfree at 2-3 years); drug-coated carrier systems (complete remission, 50-83%); viral gene therapy (complete remission, 53%); systemic immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (19-44% recurrence-free at 1 year). The rate of bladder preservation was 49-100%. No worsening of overall survival was observed. Treatments for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma included neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by frequent follow-up, radical transurethral tumor resection, partial cystectomy, and trimodal radiochemotherapy (TMRT). Only TMRT yielded comparable long-term oncological results to those of cystectomy, with a 74% rate of freedom from metastases and an overall survival rate of 73%. Any type of bladder-preserving treatment requires meticulous long-term urooncological follow-up, with repeated cystoscopies, bladder biopsies, urine cytologies, and multiparametric bladder MRI.
conclusionBladder-preserving treatments should be considered part of the therapeutic armamentarium and should be critically discussed in an interdisciplinary setting.
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.