ArticleScientific reports2025
Real-world comparison of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Choosing neoadjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer based on efficacy-safety trade-off: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
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
Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) continues to pose a significant health challenge, as conventional neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has shown limited improvements in efficacy outcomes. Recent clinical trials suggest that combining NAC with immune checkpoint blockade (NAC.NICB) may enhance therapeutic efficacy. This study aimed to explore the short-term therapeutic efficacy and outcomes of NAC.NICB compared to NAC in real-world settings for the treatment of MIBC. A total of 100 patients with MIBC who received either NAC or NAC.NICB were included in the study. The treatment efficacy of the NAC and NAC.NICB groups was evaluated based on pathological complete response (pCR) and the rate of pathological downstaging through post treatment pathological assessment. In the NAC.NICB group, clinical characteristics were compared between patients who achieved pCR and those who did not, using the independent samples t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test. Overall, 71 patients received NAC and 29 patients received NAC.NICB. At baseline, the NAC.NICB group exhibited higher T and N stages compared to the NAC group. However, 48.3% (14/29) of the patients in the NAC.NICB group achieved pCR, which was significantly higher than that observed in the NAC group (18/71, 25.4%; p = 0.034). In addition, the pathological downstaging rate in the NAC.NICB group was higher than that of the NAC group (75.9% vs. 47.9%; p = 0.014). The disease control rate (DCR) in the NAC.NICB group was higher than that observed in the NAC group (96.6% vs. 77.5%; p = 0.020). Higher pretreatment hemoglobin levels (p = 0.018) or lower platelet levels (p = 0.026) in patients undergoing NAC.NICB therapy may serve as a potential predictor for achieving a higher pCR rate. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with immune checkpoint blockade improves pCR and pathological downstaging rates in MIBC, highlighting the benefits of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for MIBC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.