ArticleEuropean urology2026
Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Bacillus Calmette-Guérin-unresponsive Carcinoma in Situ of the Bladder.
Article in European urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of maintenance BCG versus gemcitabine/docetaxel following BCG induction in NMIBC.BJU international · 2026Article
- Gemcitabine-Based Bladder Preservation in BCG-Unresponsive High-Risk NMIBC: Evidence, Limitations, and Clinical Positioning.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Economic Considerations in the Management of Superficial Bladder Cancer.The Urologic clinics of North America · 2026Review
- 'BJUI Clinical Dilemma': Recurrent high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in 2026.BJU international · 2026Article
- Bladder-Preserving Platforms for BCG-Unresponsive Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2026Review
- Sequential Intravesical Gemcitabine and Docetaxel for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Narrative Review Across Risk Groups.Research and reports in urology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveTreatment options for patients with "bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive" disease who are ineligible for or refuse radical cystectomy (RC) are expanding. Given the lack of direct comparative data, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to guide treatment selection.
methodsWe developed a Markov decision analytic model to assess five treatments: RC, nadofaragene, nogapendekin, pembrolizumab, and gemcitabine/docetaxel. Cost effectiveness was evaluated over a 5-yr period using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year from the US Medicare perspective. Three index patients with BCG-unresponsive carcinoma in situ (CIS) were assessed. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: For index patient 1, who is willing to try one line of therapy or proceed directly to RC, gemcitabine/docetaxel was the most cost-effective option. For index patient 2, open to two lines of therapy or upfront RC, RC was most cost effective. For index patient 3, willing to try up to two lines of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapy (pembrolizumab, nadofaragene, or nogapendekin) before RC, pembrolizumab was the most cost-effective option. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Current pricing of bladder-sparing treatments poses significant financial barriers for patients with BCG-unresponsive CIS. Gemcitabine/docetaxel is most cost effective when only one therapy line is considered before RC, although this varies by clinical scenario. Upfront RC is most cost effective for patients wanting to try up to two lines of therapy. For patients only willing to try FDA-approved options and unwilling to undergo upfront RC, pembrolizumab is the most cost-effective option. Our findings highlight the need for better treatment selection tools and more equitable pricing.
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.