ArticleESMO open2026
Comparative efficacy of perioperative systemic therapies for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Article in ESMO open, 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
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe perioperative treatment landscape of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is rapidly evolving with the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)- and antibody-drug conjugate (ADC)-based strategies. However, direct randomized comparisons among contemporary regimens are lacking, limiting the interpretation and positioning of treatments. We aimed to compare the efficacy of perioperative systemic treatment strategies for MIBC with a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PATIENTS AND
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and congress abstracts were systematically searched up to 28 February 2026. Phase II-III RCTs enrolling patients with MIBC treated with perioperative systemic therapy initiated before radical cystectomy and reporting overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and/or pathological complete response (pCR) were included. A frequentist graph-theoretical NMA was carried out to compare three contemporary RCTs using a star-shaped network anchored to gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) as the common comparator. Treatment ranking was estimated using P-scores. The primary outcome was OS. Secondary outcomes included EFS and pCR.
resultsIn total, 2293 patients from three RCTs contributed to the primary network. Compared with GC, enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab (EVP) was associated with improved OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65], as was GC plus durvalumab (HR 0.75). EVP and GC plus durvalumab were also associated with improved EFS (EVP HR 0.53, GC plus durvalumab HR 0.68) and higher pCR rates [EVP odds ratio (OR) 2.62, GC plus durvalumab OR 1.57] compared with GC. Across evaluated endpoints, EVP consistently achieved the most relevant P-score-based ranking. Subgroup-specific and sensitivity analyses demonstrated a consistent treatment direction.
conclusionsIn this NMA of RCTs, perioperative regimens incorporating ICIs and ADCs were associated with improved survival and pathologic response outcomes compared with GC alone. Given the sparse star-shaped network and the absence of closed loops, these findings should be interpreted as indirect comparative estimates rather than definitive evidence of treatment superiority, while still providing a clinically relevant framework for contextualizing contemporary perioperative regimens.
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.