ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Improving Urothelial Carcinoma Outcomes: The Powerful Combination of Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Chemotherapy in the Perioperative Period.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTo enhance urothelial carcinoma (UC) prognosis, clinicians combine surgery with intraoperative (ICT), neoadjuvant (NACT), or adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT); however, studies on their individual and combined effects vary. Furthermore, studies on the combined use of ACT and NACT are scarce.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the impact of these chemotherapy regimens on UC prognosis, particularly the effectiveness of ACT + NACT, using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.
methodsWe analyzed 45,211 UC cases from 2019 to 2021, focusing on renal, ureter, bladder, prostate, and urethra UC. Cox model-adjusted survival curves and multivariable Cox regression were performed using SPSS and R software.
resultsCompared with ACT, NACT alone did not significantly impact survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.834, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.392-1.774, p = 0.638), whereas ACT + NACT (HR 0.389, 95% CI 0.169-0.895, p = 0.026) and ICT + ACT + NACT (HR 0.466, 95% CI 0.246-0.883, p = 0.019) positively affected UC prognosis. However, when compared with the combination of ACT + NACT, the combination of ICT + ACT + NACT did not show a statistically significant effect (HR 1.198, 95% CI 0.427-3.362, p = 0.731). Compared with no chemotherapy, ACT reduced renal UC survival (HR 1.430, 95% CI 1.105-1.850, p = 0.007) but improved ureter (HR 0.460, 95% CI 0.232-0.915, p = 0.027) and bladder UC survival (HR 0.605, 95% CI 0.466-0.785, p < 0.001).
conclusionsPrognosis after chemotherapy varied depending on different tumor locations. ACT reduced the prognosis of renal UC patients but elevated the prognosis of ureter UC and bladder UC patients. Distinct chemotherapy protocols have also yielded varying prognostic outcomes. For UC patients, the combination of ACT + NACT merits consideration in order to achieve better prognostic outcomes than the use of ACT or NACT alone. The adoption of ICT for UC patients may not be necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40146492What 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.