Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26816829›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2015

Upper urinary tract disease: what we know today and unmet needs.

Romain Mathieu, Karim Bensalah, Ilaria Lucca, Aurélie Mbeutcha, Morgan Rouprêt, Shahrokh F Shariat

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Are there differences between de novo and secondary upper tract urothelial carcinoma tumours?Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Why are upper tract urothelial carcinoma two different diseases?Translational andrology and urology · 2016
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Romain Mathieu1 Department of Urology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France ; 2 Department of Urology, General Hospital, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland ; 4 Academic Department of Urology, La Pitié-Salpetrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, University Paris 6, Paris, France ; 5 Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA ; 6 Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA.
Karim Bensalah1 Department of Urology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France ; 2 Department of Urology, General Hospital, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland ; 4 Academic Department of Urology, La Pitié-Salpetrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, University Paris 6, Paris, France ; 5 Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA ; 6 Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA.
Ilaria Lucca1 Department of Urology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France ; 2 Department of Urology, General Hospital, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland ; 4 Academic Department of Urology, La Pitié-Salpetrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, University Paris 6, Paris, France ; 5 Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA ; 6 Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA.
Aurélie Mbeutcha1 Department of Urology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France ; 2 Department of Urology, General Hospital, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland ; 4 Academic Department of Urology, La Pitié-Salpetrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, University Paris 6, Paris, France ; 5 Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA ; 6 Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA.
Morgan Rouprêt1 Department of Urology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France ; 2 Department of Urology, General Hospital, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland ; 4 Academic Department of Urology, La Pitié-Salpetrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, University Paris 6, Paris, France ; 5 Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA ; 6 Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA.
Shahrokh F Shariat1 Department of Urology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France ; 2 Department of Urology, General Hospital, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland ; 4 Academic Department of Urology, La Pitié-Salpetrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, University Paris 6, Paris, France ; 5 Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA ; 6 Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA.
Cornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUpper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is a rare and poorly investigated disease. Intense collaborative efforts have increased our knowledge and improved the management of the disease. The objective of this review was to discuss recent advances and unmet needs in UTUC.

methodsA non-systematic Medline/PubMed literature search was performed on UTUC using the terms "upper tract urothelial carcinoma" with different combinations of keywords. Original articles, reviews and editorials in English language were selected based on their clinical relevance.

resultsUTUC is a disease with specific epidemiologic and risk factors different to urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB). Similarly to UCB, smoking increases the risk of UTUC and worsens its prognosis, whereas aristolochic acid (AA) exposure and mismatch repair genes abnormality are UTUC specific risk factors. A growing understanding of biological pathways involved in the tumorigenesis of UTUC has led to the identification of promising prognostic/predictive biomarkers. Risk stratification of UTUC is difficult due to limitations in staging and grading. Modern imaging and endoscopy have improved clinical decision-making, and allowed kidney-sparing management and surveillance in favorable-risk tumors. In high-risk tumors, radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) remains the standard. Complete removal of the intramural ureter is necessary with inferiority of endoscopic management. Post-RNU intravesical instillation has been shown to decrease bladder cancer recurrence rates. While the role of neoadjuvant cisplatin based combination chemotherapy and lymphadenectomy are not clearly established, the body of evidence suggests a survival benefit to these. There is currently no evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in UTUC.

conclusionsDespite growing interest and understanding of UTUC, its management remains challenging, requiring further high quality multicenter collaborations. Accurate risk estimation is necessary to avoid unnecessary RNUs while advances in technology are still required for optimal kidney-sparing approaches.

Indexed as

chemotherapypredictive toolsradical nephroureterectomy (RNU)risk factorsUpper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC)ureteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID26816829
PMCPMC4708228
OpenAlexW2210802135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.