MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414973786 · doi:10.1080/14737159.2025.2573459

Urinary biomarkers for immunotherapy response in urothelial carcinoma: current status and future outlook

2025· review· en· W4414973786 on OpenAlexaff
Shota Inoue, Marcin Miszczyk, Agata Suleja, Akihiro Matsukawa, Keiichiro Miyajima, Alessandro Dematteis, Angelo Cormio, Navid Roessler, Ahmed R Alfarhan, Ichiro Tsuboi, Tatsushi Kawada, Satoshi Katayama, Takehiro Iwata, Kensuke Bekku, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Leonardo Oliveira Reis, Motoo Araki, Shahrokh F. Shariat

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Molecular Diagnostics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunotherapyMultiplexUrinary systemRisk stratificationBiomarkerStandardization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Immunotherapy treatments, such as intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and systemic immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for all stages are central to the management of urothelial carcinoma (UC). Biomarkers that are prognostic or predictive and that help in monitoring these therapies are needed to guide and improve efficacy and tolerability. In this review, we evaluated the current landscape of urinary biomarkers for predicting response to immunotherapy (BCG and ICIs) in UC patients and their potential to guide personalized treatment strategies. AREAS COVERED: This narrative review summarizes current evidence on urinary biomarkers for predicting responses to BCG and ICIs therapies in UC, based on a comprehensive search of PubMed literature. EXPERT OPINION: Urinary biomarkers show significant potential for transforming UC immunotherapy by facilitating personalized treatment. Despite promising initial data for various analytes, large-scale validation and standardization must be addressed. We still need better, faster, easier, cheaper, reliable and valid urine-based biomarkers. Future research should focus on multiplex panels to enhance patient stratification and improve therapeutic outcomes and follow-up.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Molecular DiagnosticsSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207