ReviewJournal of Cancer2026
Field cancerization in urothelial carcinoma: molecular alterations and clinical implications.
Review in Journal of Cancer, 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
Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a common malignancy of the urinary tract and is characterized by frequent recurrence, particularly in patients with non-muscle-invasive disease. Recurrence has traditionally been explained by residual tumor cells, intraluminal seeding, or the outgrowth of disseminated clones. However, molecular studies have shown that urothelium that appears normal under routine histological examination may already harbor cancer-related alterations. These findings support the concept of field cancerization, whereby prolonged exposure to carcinogens, chronic inflammation, and other injurious stimuli produces a biologically altered urothelial field before overt malignancy becomes visible. In this review, we searched PubMed and Web of Science for relevant studies published up to January 2026. We focused on investigations of peritumoral tissue or histologically normal-appearing urothelium that reported molecular abnormalities associated with UC development or recurrence. Available evidence from sequencing, methylation profiling, spatial mapping, and multi-omics studies indicates that field changes may involve somatic mutations, copy-number alterations, epigenetic dysregulation, metabolic reprogramming, and remodeling of the local immune and stromal microenvironment. These changes may create a permissive background for clonal expansion, multifocal tumor development, and recurrence after treatment. Although the clinical definition and spatial extent of the urothelial field remain unsettled, molecular characterization of apparently uninvolved urothelium may help refine risk assessment beyond conventional histopathology. In particular, perioperative urinary tumor DNA testing may assist in identifying molecular residual disease and support more individualized surveillance or adjuvant treatment decisions.
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.