SynthesisWorld journal of urology2025
Assessing clinical complete response after neoadjuvant systemic therapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeReliable assessment of clinical complete response (cCR) is essential to facilitate bladder-sparing treatment approaches in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) undergoing neoadjuvant systemic therapy, yet there is no agreement on the choice of diagnostic modalities for its assessment. We aimed to summarize strategies for assessing cCR in MIBC to facilitate development of bladder-preservation strategies.
methodsIn this prospectively registered systematic review (CRD420251088678), we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science in July 2025 for studies reporting on cCR in MIBC patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy prior to definitive local therapy or bladder preservation strategies. Risk-of-bias (RoB) was assessed using ROBINS-I tool.
resultsOut of 1696 individual records, 41 studies comprising 3588 patients were included in this systematic review. Majority of studies used cisplatin-based neoadjuvant therapies (n = 2941, 23 studies), with eight studies including perioperative immunotherapy (n = 647). For cCR evaluation, 12 studies (n = 1064) used only medical imaging (including CT, MRI, or FDG-PET/CT), three studies (n = 231) performed re-TURBT, one study (n = 56) used cystoscopy, and the remaining 25 studies (n = 2237) assessed cCR through combinations of medical imaging and clinical evaluation. Reported cCR rates ranged from 4.2% to 45% for CT, 15% to 78% for MRI, 76% for FDG-PET/CT, 25% to 46% for TURBT, 50% for cystoscopy, and 7.4% to 87% in studies combining medical imaging with local clinical evaluation. Most studies were rated as having moderate RoB concerns, while one preliminary report was classified as having serious RoB due to limited sample size.
conclusionWe found substantial heterogeneity in cCR assessment modalities, limiting comparability across bladder-sparing studies and highlighting the need for standardization. Data on patients receiving neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy remain scarce, and none incorporated urinary tumor DNA in cCR definitions. Serial MRI, with or without invasive assessment, appears promising for selecting candidates for bladder preservation.
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.