SynthesisOncology reviews2025
DNA methylation as prognostic factors in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Oncology reviews, 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
Introduction: Early prognostication in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is essential for optimizing therapy and follow-up. Epigenetic mechanisms, particularly DNA methylation, have emerged as promising biomarkers for predicting disease outcome. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to evaluate the prognostic significance of promoter DNA methylation in NMIBC. Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library (January 2010-October 2022) identified eligible studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for quality assessment, and pooled hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects models. Results: Eleven studies with 3,065 NMIBC patients were analyzed. Promoter methylation was significantly associated with poor progression-free survival (pooled hazard ratios (HR) = 2.88; 95% CI = 2.03-4.09; p < 0.0001) and recurrence-free survival (pooled HR = 2.65; 95% CI = 1.93-3.63; p < 0.0001). Although overall survival showed pathway-specific variation (pooled HR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.36-2.60; p = 0.94), methylation of adhesion and apoptosis-related genes exhibited the strongest associations. Subgroup analyses revealed a greater prognostic impact in Asian cohorts (p < 0.0001), suggesting regional differences in epigenetic susceptibility. Conclusion: Promoter DNA methylation constitutes a robust prognostic biomarker for recurrence and progression in NMIBC, with stronger effects in Asian populations. Standardization of validated gene panels, assay thresholds, and cross-regional prospective validation will be essential for clinical translation. Integrating methylation-based classifiers into risk stratification models could improve individualized management and long-term outcomes in NMIBC.
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.