Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The pursuit of surgeons and oncologists in fulfilling the inherent desire of patients to retain their urinary bladder despite having muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) has sparked years of research and multiple debates, given its aggressive nature and the high risk of fatal metastatic recurrence. Historically, several approaches to bladder-sparing treatment have been explored, ranging from radical transurethral resection to concurrent chemoradiation. A less well-established approach involves a risk-adapted approach with local therapy deferred based on the clinical response to transurethral resection followed by systemic therapy. Each approach is associated with potential risks, benefits, and trade-offs. In this review, we aim to understand, navigate, and suggest future perspectives on bladder-sparing approaches in patients with MIBC.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2024.04.004 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!