ReviewNature reviews. Urology2026
Integrating clinically actionable biomarkers into bladder cancer care - recommendations from the International Bladder Cancer Group.
Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 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
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Crucial unmet needs for standardization and clinical integration of actionable biomarkers persist across the bladder cancer disease spectrum. To address these gaps, the International Bladder Cancer Group (IBCG) convened a global multidisciplinary panel to develop evidence-based consensus recommendations on biomarker use in bladder cancer. Recommendations were formulated across the disease spectrum using a modified Delphi process. In patients with asymptomatic microhaematuria, biomarker use should be guided by a risk-stratified approach. For patients with established non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, no biomarker prospectively validated is available to guide intravesical therapy selection, although approved commercial tests might aid in adjudicating equivocal cytology or cystoscopy findings in patients with high-grade disease. In muscle-invasive bladder cancer, no validated biomarkers exist to guide the choice between bladder preservation and radical cystectomy, or to inform the choice of neoadjuvant therapy. Circulating tumour DNA is prognostic following neoadjuvant therapy and radical cystectomy, and provides predictive value for selecting patients who are most likely to benefit from adjuvant treatment with approved immunotherapy regimens. In addition, circulating tumour DNA has prognostic value in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The IBCG recommends assessing FGFR3 genomic alterations and HER2 immunohistochemistry in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic bladder cancer to inform therapeutic selection. The IBCG consensus recommendations provide practical, stage-specific guidance on the use of biomarkers for diagnosis, risk stratification and treatment selection in patients with bladder cancer and define priorities for future validation and trial design.
Identifiers
42557383What 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.