{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011428571428571429, 'mean_word_length': 5.5514018691588785, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Should every patient with muscle-invasive bladder cancer receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

The use of cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for all patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is recommended by current guidelines (1,2). However, the study of Bhindi et al . suggest, that patients not responding to NAC show an inferior survival than a comparable control group (3). Furthermore, only 20–38% of the patients exposed towards NAC show a histopathological response (4). Taking these aspects and the known chemotherapy-related toxicity into consideration leads both, providers and patients, to the question whether the potential benefits of NAC outweigh its disadvantages.