ReviewBJUI compass2025
Novel neoadjuvant therapies for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Choosing neoadjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer based on efficacy-safety trade-off: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Novel neoadjuvant therapies for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis.BJUI compass · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of novel neoadjuvant therapies including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), molecular targeted agents (MTA) and antibody-drug conjugates in muscle-invasive bladder cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials. Subjects/Patients and Methods: A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov through December 2024. Eligible studies were phase II or higher prospective trials investigating novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy. Primary endpoints were pathologic complete response and downstaging rates. Secondary endpoints included biomarker analysis, survival outcomes and safety profiles. Data were extracted following PRISMA guidelines, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed. Results: Seventeen trials comprising 1977 patients were analysed. ICI-based treatments were associated with pathologic complete response rates of 37% (95% CI, 34%-40%) and downstaging rates of 55% (95% CI, 48%-61%). ICI monotherapy was associated with higher response rates compared with MTA monotherapy (pathologic complete response: 34% vs. 5%; downstaging: 47% vs. 27%). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred less frequently with ICI-based treatments than MTA-based treatments (35% vs. 62%). High PD-L1 expression was associated with improved pathologic response (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.44-4.71). Two-year overall survival rates were 81% for ICI-based regimens and 86% for MTA-based regimens. Conclusion: Novel neoadjuvant therapies, particularly ICI-based regimens, were associated with meaningful pathologic response rates and acceptable safety profiles. PD-L1 expression may help guide patient selection for ICI-based therapy. Randomized trials are needed to establish optimal treatment algorithms and validate predictive biomarkers.
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.