The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite local therapy most patients with muscle invasive transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the bladder die of systemic relapse, indicating a need for effective adjunctive systemic treatment. We determined whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy improved overall survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed of all known randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stages II and III TCC conducted between 1984 and 2002. RESULTS: A total of 16 eligible RCTs (3,315 patients) were identified. Of these trials 11 (2,605 patients) provided data suitable for a meta-analysis of overall survival and the pooled HR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.99, p = 0.02). Eight trials used cisplatin based combination chemotherapy and the pooled HR was 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.96, p = 0.006), consistent with an absolute overall survival benefit of 6.5% (95% CI 2 to 11%) from 50% to 56.5%. Reported progression-free survival data were insufficient for meta-analysis but they appeared concordant with overall survival results. Mortality due to combination chemotherapy was 1.1%. A major pathological response was associated with improved overall survival in 4 trials. CONCLUSIONS Neoadjuvant cisplatin based chemotherapy improves overall survival in muscle invasive TCC. The size of the effect is modest and combination chemotherapy can be administered safely without adverse outcomes resulting in delayed local therapy. An optimal chemotherapy regimen was not identified and newer regimens have not been tested in RCTs in this setting. Further efforts to identify the patients most likely to benefit from neoadjuvant therapy are necessary to optimize its use.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Investigating and Dealing with Publication and Other Biases
Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001) · Systematic Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch11 · Cited by 449
Cited by
Kaufman, D. S., Shipley, W. U., & Feldman, A. S. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60491-8 · Cited by 988
Yin, M., Joshi, M., Meijer, R. P., Glantz, M., Holder, S., Harvey, H. A., Kaag, M., Fransen van de Putte, E. E., Horenblas, S., & Drabick, J. J. (2016) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0440 · Cited by 474
Rosenblatt, R., Sherif, A., Rintala, E., Wahlqvist, R., Ullén, A., Nilsson, S., & Malmström, P.-U. (2012) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.12.010 · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- WINQUIST, E., KIRCHNER, T. S., SEGAL, R., CHIN, J., LUKKA, H., & on behalf of the GENITOURINARY CANCER DISEASE SITE GROUP OF CANCER CARE ONTARIO PROGRAM IN EVIDENCE-BASED CARE PRACTICE GUIDELINES INITIATIVE
- Venue
- Journal of Urology
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 171
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 561-569
- ISSN
- 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-3792
- OpenAlex
- W2029132015
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ju.0000090967.08622.33
- The paper
- WINQUIST, E., KIRCHNER, T. S., SEGAL, R., CHIN, J., LUKKA, H., & on behalf of the GENITOURINARY CANCER DISEASE SITE GROUP OF CANCER CARE ONTARIO PROGRAM IN EVIDENCE-BASED CARE PRACTICE GUIDELINES INITIATIVE. (2004). Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000090967.08622.33
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.