ReviewBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Orthotopic bladder cancer preclinical models: Comprehensive review and technique optimization.
Review in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Objective: We systematically collected data from published studies that have utilized orthotopic bladder tumor models in mice or rats to identify trends and outcomes across techniques. We used these data to optimize a surgical orthotopic technique. Methods: A PubMed search was performed to identify articles involving orthotopic implantation of tumor cells into mouse or rat bladders for research purposes. Results were individually reviewed and filtered. All studies reporting preclinical models established via a surgical, transurethral, and/or ultrasound-guided approach were included. Surgical orthotopic tumor implantation experiments were performed and data collected. Results: A total of 254 studies were identified, of which 187 met criteria and were included in the analysis. Data regarding each orthotopic technique was reviewed and trends were identified. Transurethral installation was the most commonly used method but had the lowest tumor take rate. The surgical approach had the highest metastatic rate. These data were used to inform optimization of the surgical orthotopic approach in our laboratory. The study is limited by its retrospective design and heterogeneity of data reporting across studies. Conclusions: Tumor take rates vary across orthotopic implantation techniques. Optimization of a surgical implantation approach is feasible. These findings can inform best practices for orthotopic bladder cancer models.
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.