ReviewEuropean urology open science2026
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Prior to Trimodality Therapy for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in European urology open science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Programmed Cell Death in Urological Cancers: Orchestrating the Immune Microenvironment and Immunotherapy.Oncology research · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) before radical cystectomy improves outcomes in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but its value before trimodality therapy (TMT; maximal transurethral resection of the bladder tumor plus concurrent chemoradiation) is uncertain. This review aims to evaluate whether the addition of NACT to TMT is associated with improved survival in patients with MIBC. Methods: We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases (February 2025). Eligible studies reported adjusted estimates for overall (OS), cancer-specific (CSS), or disease-free (DFS)/recurrence-free survival in patients undergoing TMT, comparing those who received versus those who did not receive NACT. Random-effect meta-analyses pooled multivariable hazard ratios (HRs). The risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I (PROSPERO registration: CRD420251120157). Key findings and limitations: Fourteen studies comprising 4112 patients met the inclusion criteria. However, only two to three studies contributed adjusted HRs for each oncological outcome regarding the use of NACT or the response to NACT. Gemcitabine-cisplatin was the most common NACT regimen (reported in ten studies). Compared with no NACT, NACT was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in OS (HR 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.12, Conclusions and clinical implications: Across adjusted observational data, addition of NACT before TMT was not associated with a survival benefit. However, patients who respond to NACT experience a substantially better prognosis. Prospective trials testing modern neoadjuvant strategies-particularly immunotherapy- and targeted therapy-based regimens-within the standardized TMT protocols are warranted. Patient summary: We reviewed studies in which chemotherapy was given before a bladder-sparing approach, called trimodality therapy (tumor removal plus chemoradiation). Overall, this treatment approach did not improve survival, although patients who responded to the pretreatment did better. Newer drugs, including immunotherapy, should be tested in this setting.
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.