ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Optimizing treatment selection: outcomes of radical cystectomy in patients eligible for trimodal therapy.
Article in World journal of urology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study examines oncological and functional outcomes in a subset of patients eligible for trimodal therapy (TMT) within a large radical cystectomy (RC) cohort. It aims to determine whether TMT should be offered to all eligible patients, rather than exclusively to patients with significant comorbidities who are at high perioperative risk.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 509 patients with urothelial carcinoma (pT1-pT4) who underwent RC between 2014 and 2020. Patients were divided into TMT eligible (n = 74), and TMT ineligible (n = 431) cohorts based on preoperative criteria. Key endpoints included blood loss, operative duration, urinary diversion type, adjuvant chemotherapy, and overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS). Functional outcomes were assessed using validated quality of life (QoL) questionnaires.
resultsRC patients who were eligible for TMT demonstrated significantly better oncological outcomes, with higher overall survival (OS) (HR: 2.774, p < 0.001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 3.689, p < 0.001). They also experienced lower intraoperative blood loss (544.59 ml vs. 740.50 ml, p = 0.002) and were more likely to receive continent urinary diversion (55.1% vs. 38.8%, p = 0.01), with nearly 50% undergoing ileal neobladder reconstruction. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered more frequently in the TMT-ineligible group (20.8% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.003). Apart from a significant difference in the positive support domain of the ISSS (p = 0.01), no significant differences in functional outcomes were observed.
conclusionTMT eligible patients undergoing RC have better oncological outcomes and more favourable perioperative parameters compared to TMT ineligible patients. These findings highlight the need for careful patient counselling when considering TMT as an alternative to RC. Future prospective studies are warranted to optimise treatment selection and functional outcome assessment in bladder cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40155467What 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.