ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2026
Enhanced detection of bladder cancer using combined circulating tumor cells, urine-derived epithelial cells, and molecular biomarkers.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe sensitivity of bladder cancer detection using a single biomarker from single sample type is limited. This study aimed to investigate whether a combined approach utilizing multiple biomarkers from different clinical samples could improve detection sensitivity.
methodsA total of 85 patients with bladder cancer and 30 healthy individuals were enrolled in this study. Urine and blood samples were collected for the isolation of urine-derived epithelial cells (UDECs) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs). These cells were then analyzed via PD-L1 assay and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) targeting chromosomes 7 and 8. In parallel, matched urine samples from patients underwent conventional urine exfoliation cytology testing (UEC). All data were analyzed in conjunction with pathological information using specialized statistical software.
resultsAnalysis of CTCs demonstrated a significantly higher bladder cancer detection rate (78.6%) compared to UEC (36.7%). The combination of UDEC-FISH and CTC analysis utilizing urine and blood samples achieved a higher detection rate (94.1%) than the combination of UDEC-FISH with UEC performed on the same urine sample (79.8%). Furthermore, combined analysis of three markers of CTC, UEC, and UDEC-FISH (96.5%) or CTC, UEC, and UDEC-PD-L1 (90.6%) yielded significantly higher detection rates than any single biomarker analysis alone.
conclusionIntegrating multiple biomarkers from distinct sample types significantly enhances the detection sensitivity for bladder cancer.
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.