| Title |
The role of biomarkers in bladder preservation management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Urology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00345-018-2480-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timur Mitin, Ananya Choudhury |
| Abstract |
Patients with localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) can choose to undergo either neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy or radiation therapy-based bladder preservation treatment modality with subsequent close cystoscopic surveillance with salvage cystectomy reserved for patients with evidence of local disease recurrence. At the present time, the decision regarding bladder-directed local therapy for MIBC is based on physicians' and patients' preferences, and does not take into account tumor biology. Predictive biomarkers, once validated, could offer a more patient-centered and biology-driven selection of bladder-directed therapies. We provide a narrative review of clinical data pertaining to the biomarkers in bladder preservation management of MIBC. There are currently no validated and clinically used biological markers used for stratification of radical bladder treatment and selection of bladder-preserving therapies. This article summarizes biomarkers that could have a potential clinical utility-PD-L1, molecular subtypes, Ki-67, MRE-11 and markers of hypoxia-and offers a hypothetical pathway model for a marker-driven precision management of medically operable patients with a newly diagnosed MIBC. When selecting the optimal cancer treatment, both patient and tumor factors need to be considered. Once validated, biological markers will help clinicians tailor the management of MIBC to individual patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Researcher | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 42% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 15% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2019.
All research outputs
#15,018,906
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#1,467
of 2,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,600
of 337,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#44
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.