Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40822997›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology open science2025

Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Bladder Cancer: Ushering in a New Era of Treatment-A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.

Caio Vinicius Suartz, Richard Dobrucki de Lima, Lucas Schenk de Almeida, Bruno Liebl, Roberto Iglesias Lopes, Gabriel Baêta Branquinho Reis, Pedro Vasconcelos Henry Sant'Anna, Vinícius Daniel Faris de Campos, José Mauricio Mota, Bárbara Vieira Lima Aguiar Melão and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European urology open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Caio Vinicius SuartzDepartment of Urology, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre and Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada.
Richard Dobrucki de LimaDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Lucas Schenk de AlmeidaDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Bruno LieblDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Roberto Iglesias LopesDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Gabriel Baêta Branquinho ReisDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Pedro Vasconcelos Henry Sant'AnnaDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Vinícius Daniel Faris de CamposDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
José Mauricio MotaGenitourinary Medical Oncology Service, São Paulo Cancer State Institute, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Bárbara Vieira Lima Aguiar MelãoDepartment of Oncology, Manaus Hospital, Manaus, Brazil.
William Carlos NahasDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Walid ShahrourDepartment of Urology, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre and Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada.
Walid ShabanaDepartment of Urology, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre and Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada.
Leopoldo Alves Ribeiro-FilhoDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Paul TorenUrology Department, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Vicent FradetUrology Department, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), alone or with platinum-based chemotherapy, have increasingly been studied as neoadjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (BC). We sought to evaluate the current evidence about neoadjuvant immunotherapy for BC. Methods: In this systematic review, conducted in October 2024, only prospective studies on neoadjuvant immunotherapy for BC were included. Extracted variables encompassed study design, clinical-pathological characteristics, perioperative outcomes, pathological complete response (pCR) rates, overall survival (OS), event-free survival, and immune-related (irAEs) and treatment-related (TRAEs) adverse events. Key findings and limitations: From 726 records, 35 studies met the inclusion criteria. The highest pCR rate observed was 54%, utilizing durvalumab. Perioperative chemoimmunotherapy with durvalumab plus cisplatin/gemcitabine showed greater OS than chemotherapy alone in the NIAGARA trial. The NEMIO trial achieved the highest 12-mo OS rate of 97%, using durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab and dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin, followed by the AURA trial (95%) and the LCCC1520 trial (91%). At 24 mo, the NEBULA trial reported a 100% OS rate with three doses of atezolizumab, while PrECOG PrE0807 reached and OS rate of 89% with nivolumab and lirilumab. The highest rates of grade 3 and 4 irAEs were reported for nivolumab combined with ipilimumab (54%) and for durvalumab combined with tremelimumab (64%). The most common grade 3/4 irAEs were hepatitis (2-27%), kidney injury (2-100%), and skin rash (1.1-41%). Grade 3/4 TRAEs were comparable between the ICI and chemotherapy groups. Conclusions and clinical implications: Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for BC has shown promising efficacy and a manageable adverse event profile. However, financial toxicity, the absence of predictive biomarkers, and the risk of significant irAEs remain challenges. Patient summary: This study reviewed recent clinical trials that tested immunotherapy before surgery in patients with bladder cancer. The results suggest that a combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy may improve outcomes and reduce the risk of cancer returning. These findings could help shape future treatment options for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Indexed as

Bladder cancerChemotherapyImmunotherapyNeoadjuvantSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40822997
PMCPMC12351343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.