ArticleBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Practice patterns and outcomes of conventional versus split-dose cisplatin in neoadjuvant ddMVAC in bladder cancer.
Article in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The practice patterns and efficacy of ddMVAC administered with split-dose cisplatin for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) remains largely undefined. Objective: To characterize the application and overall survival (OS) in patients with MIBC receiving conventional ddMVAC versus split-dosed ddMVAC and to examine the predictive variables in those receiving split-dosed cisplatin. Methods: Using data from the CancerLinQ Discovery database, we identified 626 patients with bladder cancer between 2000-2023 with receipt of ddMVAC. The primary outcome was OS by receipt of split-dose versus conventional ddMVAC. A secondary outcome of interest assessed predictors of receipt of split-dose ddMVAC. Use of split-dose versus conventional ddMVAC was compared using chi-square tests. Univariate and multivariable OS were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. Predictors of receipt of split dose versus conventional ddMVAC were estimated using logistic regression models. Results: Most patients with MIBC are treated with standard dose ddMVAC. In multivariate analysis, no statistically significant difference in OS was observed between split-dose and conventional ddMVAC (HR 1.3, CI 0.78-2.18, p = 0.316). We demonstrate a notable decline in the use of split-dose cisplatin over time. Baseline GFR and performance status were not predictors of split-dosing in this cohort. Conclusions: Most patients with MIBC received conventional ddMVAC with decreasing frequency of split-dose cisplatin use over time. We did not observe a difference in OS between patients with MIBC who received standard versus split-dose cisplatin.
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.