Observational studyInternational urology and nephrology2025
Chemotherapy-enhanced endoscopic submucosal En Bloc dissection vs. conventional TURBT for NMIBC: a comparative study.
Observational study in International urology and nephrology, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy of integrating en bloc resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and submucosal injection of chemotherapeutic agents with TURBT (cESD-TURBT).
methodsThis retrospective observational study was conducted on patients diagnosed with stage cTa-T1 bladder cancer who received TURBT between December 2020 and July 2023 at Liaoning Cancer Hospital. The participants were grouped on the basis of the type of treatment they received: cESD-TURBT (n = 118) or conventional TURBT (cTURBT, n = 105). Hydroxycothecin is the chemotherapeutic agent used for submucosal injections. The primary outcome was the recurrence-free survival (RFS) of the treated patients with bladder cancer. The secondary outcomes included disease recurrence within one year, operation duration, length of postoperative hospitalization, and complication rates. Statistical analyses were performed via appropriate tests, with a threshold of P < 0.05 defined as statistically significant.
resultsCompared with the cTURBT cohort, the cESD-TURBT cohort demonstrated increased RFS, with a median follow-up of 775 days (interquartile range [IQR] 414-1040). The recurrence rate in the cESD-TURBT cohort was 18.6% (22/118), whereas it was 39.1% (41/105) in the cTURBT cohort, with a log-rank hazard ratio of 0.49 (95% CI 0.29-0.82; p = 0.0053). Furthermore, cESD-TURBT resulted in fewer postoperative complications than did cTURBT, markedly reducing the occurrence of complications, such as the obturator reflex (1.7% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.03). The difference in operation time was not statistically significant, with a cESD-TURBT of 49.0 ± 21.0 min and a cTURBT of 44.3 ± 23.8 min (p = 0.127).
conclusionOur analysis revealed that, compared with cTURBT, cESD-TURBT significantly lowers recurrence rates and is associated with fewer postoperative complications. Our study revealed that cESD-TURBT is superior to cTURBT for bladder tumor removal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40057908What 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.