ReviewCancers2026
Low-Cost Pathology Signals for Risk Stratification in High-Risk Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cancers, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
T1 high-grade (T1HG) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder presents a persistent clinical challenge: despite uniform high-risk classification under EAU guidelines, BCG failure and disease progression rates range from 10% to 40% across published series. Standard clinicopathological variables do not adequately explain this heterogeneity. Three pathological parameters evaluable from routine TURBT specimens-T1 substaging by lamina propria invasion depth, tumour budding at the invasion front, and E-cadherin (CDH1) immunohistochemistry-share a common mechanistic basis in CDH1-driven partial epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and may refine escalation-oriented risk stratification without requiring additional tissue or molecular testing. We conducted a narrative critical review of PubMed/MEDLINE (January 2000-February 2026; 28 included studies) to evaluate the quantitative evidence for each parameter, with emphasis on reproducibility and BCG-specific outcome data. T1 substaging carries the strongest evidence: pooled progression HR 3.29 (95% CI 2.39-4.51) across 36 studies (n = 6781), with BCG failure of 41% vs. 21% in a centralised BCG-treated registry cohort of 264 patients on multivariable analysis. Tumour budding shows consistent adverse associations in BCG-treated pT1 NMIBC; zero progression was observed in the low-budding subgroup in the only available BCG-specific full-text cohort. CDH1 IHC is directionally supportive but limited by scoring heterogeneity (I
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.