ArticleUrologic oncology2026
Comparative effectiveness of intravesical gemcitabine vs. sequential gemcitabine and docetaxel for high-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer.
Article in Urologic oncology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSequential intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel (Gem/Doce) are increasingly used for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), especially in the setting of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage or failure. However, the contribution of docetaxel to gemcitabine remains unquantified. We compared the effectiveness of gemcitabine alone vs. Gem/Doce in high-risk NMIBC.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of 296 patients treated with gemcitabine (n = 173) or Gem/Doce (n = 123) at 3 Mayo Clinic sites between 2018 and 2023. The primary outcome was high-grade recurrence-free survival (HGRFS). Secondary outcomes included recurrence-free, progression-free, cystectomy-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival and adverse events. Analyses included Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression with 2-stage residual inclusion to adjust for confounding.
resultsMedian HGRFS was similar between groups (gemcitabine: 22.6 months; Gem/Doce: 19.5 months [P = 0.25]). Among patients with BCG-unresponsive carcinoma in situ (n = 49), median HGRFS was comparable (gemcitabine: 12.2 months; Gem/Doce: 7.6 months [P = 0.12]). No significant differences were observed for secondary outcomes. In the 2-stage residual inclusion analysis, Gem/Doce was not associated with improved HGRFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.65-1.82; P = 0.80), including among patients with BCG-unresponsive disease (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 0.96-5.24 [P = .06]). Low-grade adverse events were common (gemcitabine: 63%; Gem/Doce: 55% [P = 0.19]), but grade ≥3 adverse events were rare (2.3% vs. 2.4%). Limitations included imbalances in maintenance utilization (gemcitabine: 19%; Gem/Doce: 40%), baseline characteristics, gemcitabine dosing, and follow-up duration between cohorts.
conclusionsIn this multicenter study, Gem/Doce was not associated with improved outcomes compared with gemcitabine alone. Prospective trials are needed to quantify the specific contribution of docetaxel in NMIBC.
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.