Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27612412›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology2016

A systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and renal function outcomes obtained after segmental ureterectomy versus radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

D Fang, T Seisen, K Yang, P Liu, X Fan, N Singla, G Xiong, L Zhang, X Li, L Zhou

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

D FangDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Centre, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing 100034, China.
T SeisenAcademic Department of Urology, Pitié Salpétrière Hospital, APHP, 47-83 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, Paris F-75013, France; UPMC University Paris 06, GRC5, ONCOTYPE-Uro, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Paris F-75005, France.
K YangDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Centre, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing 100034, China.
P LiuDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Centre, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing 100034, China.
X FanDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, No.107 Yanjiang West Rd, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou 510120, China.
N SinglaDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390, USA.
G XiongDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Centre, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing 100034, China.
L ZhangDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Centre, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing 100034, China.
X LiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Centre, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing 100034, China. Electronic address: pineneedle@sina.com.
L ZhouDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Centre, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing 100034, China.
Peking University First Hospital · CNPeking University · CNOnco-Urologie PrédictiveSun Yat-sen University · CNThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

Physician Scientist Oncology Training ProgramT32CA136515 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI SKAPEK, STEPHEN X · 2009 to 2018
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA136515
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparative studies reporting oncological and renal function outcomes of segmental ureterectomy (SU) versus radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinomas (UTUC). MATERIALS AND

methodsA literature search on Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines, and a meta-analysis was performed to assess cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), intravesical recurrence free survival (IVRFS) and surgery-related variations in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

resultsA total of 11 retrospective studies with 3963 patients who underwent either SU (n = 983; 24.8%) or RNU (n = 2980; 75.2%) were included. Although patients treated with SU were more likely to be diagnosed with favorable pathological features, the meta-analysis of unadjusted data revealed no significant difference between both groups in terms of CSS (HR 0.90, p = 0.33) and OS (HR 0.98, p = 0.93). Accordingly, the meta-analysis of adjusted data confirmed equivalent CSS (HR = 0.90, p = 0.47) between SU and RNU. Similarly, no significant difference was found in terms of RFS (HR 1.06, p = 0.72) and IVRFS (HR 1.35, p = 0.39). However, a significant decreased risk of impaired renal function was observed after SU when compared to RNU (mean eGFR difference = 9.32 ml/1.73 m

conclusionAlthough adverse patient and tumor characteristics were not equally balanced between treatment arms, our systematic review and meta-analysis supports similar oncological outcomes between SU and RNU, with better preservation of renal function after SU. As such, SU should be preferably used as the first-line treatment for low-risk ureter tumors, while considered for selected cases of high-risk disease.

Indexed as

Glomerular Filtration RateCarcinoma, Transitional CellHumansKidney NeoplasmsNephrectomyTreatment OutcomeUreterUreteral NeoplasmsKidney-sparing surgeryMeta-analysisRadical nephroureterectomySegmental ureterectomyUpper tract urothelial carcinomas

Identifiers

PMID27612412
PMCPMC7312551
OpenAlexW2511723321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.