ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Study of Gemcitabine-Cisplatin vs. Dose-Dense MVAC (Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin) as Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Indirect Comparison of Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategies for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: ddMVAC and Perioperative Durvalumab-Gemcitabine-Cisplatin Versus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.International journal of cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Neoadjuvant disitamab vedotin (RC-48) plus a PD-1 inhibitor in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a multicenter real-world study with stratification by HER2 expression and tertiary lymphoid structures.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Observational
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
Background Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) involves a high risk of progression and death. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), prior to radical cystectomy (RC), has been shown to improve survival. Gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) has emerged as a preferred NAC regimen based on its favorable toxicity profile, while dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVAC) may yield better pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, as reported in some studies. Purpose The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles of GC and ddMVAC as neoadjuvant regimens in patients with MIBC. Methods This was a retrospective study of 120 patients with clinical stage cT≥2-4a, N+M0 MIBC, treated at a single tertiary cancer center from January 2023 to December 2024. GC was administered to 63 patients, and ddMVAC to 57 patients. Outcomes included pCR, pathologic downstaging, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Results The pCR rate was higher for ddMVAC (22/57 patients, 38.59%) than for GC (14/63 patients, 22.22%) (p = 0.04). Patients with downstaging (≤pT1N0) were more frequent in the ddMVAC group (34/57 patients, 59.64%) compared to the GC group (28/63 patients, 44.44%). The median OS was longer for the ddMVAC group (41.6 months; 95% CI: 35.2-48.9) compared to the GC group (36.8 months; 95% CI: 30.5-42.1) (p = 0.12; HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.63-1.06). The incidence of grade ≥3 toxicity was higher for ddMVAC, with 20/57 patients (35%) vs. 10/63 patients (15.87%) for GC. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 8/57 patients (14%) in the ddMVAC group, compared to 3/63 patients (4.76%) in the GC group. Conclusion ddMVAC exhibited higher pCR and downstaging rates than GC, with a tolerable - though higher - rate of toxicity. Both regimens are acceptable options for NAC in MIBC, with treatment choice dependent on each patient's fitness and preferences.
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.