ReviewEuropean urology open science2026
Perioperative Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Combined with Radical Cystectomy: A Rapid 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. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with radical cystectomy (RC) represent an emerging paradigm for optimizing outcomes in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Our aim was to synthesize current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of perioperative ICIs in this setting. Methods: In this rapid review and meta-analysis (CRD420251145050), we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases and the European Society for Medical Oncology 2025 abstract book for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating perioperative ICIs in patients undergoing RC. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models for survival outcomes and to pool proportions of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. Key findings and limitations: Of 1613 individual records screened, we included five RCTs evaluating ICIs in MIBC; three trials assessed adjuvant-only ICIs, while two assessed perioperative (neoadjuvant + adjuvant) ICIs. In adjuvant-only trials, there was evidence of better disease-free survival for patients with lower tract urothelial carcinoma (LTUC; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.92). Perioperative ICIs showed evidence of benefits in terms of event-free survival (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.87) and overall survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.96) for patients with LTUC. Grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs occurred in 16-26% of patients in adjuvant-only trials and 41-71% in perioperative trials. High heterogeneity in treatment regimens, endpoint definitions, and follow-up durations limits interpretability of pooled estimates. Conclusion and clinical implications: Perioperative ICIs show promising efficacy in patients with MIBC undergoing RC. However, substantial heterogeneity in trial design, treatment strategies, and endpoint definitions limits definitive interpretation. Careful optimization of patient selection, treatment sequencing, combination strategies, and molecular profiling will be critical to maximizing the impact of multimodal therapy in MIBC. Patient summary: We reviewed studies in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who received immunotherapy around the time of surgery. The results suggest that combining immunotherapy with surgery may offer a benefit, but further research is needed to determine which patients benefit the most and the best timing and combinations of these treatments.
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.