Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28251485›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2017

Endoscopic Treatment of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma.

Daniel P Verges, Costas D Lallas, Scott G Hubosky, Demetrius H Bagley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Nephron-sparing management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma.Investigative and clinical urology · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Reflections on personalized management of UTUC.World journal of urology · 2018
    Article
  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

4 authors.

Daniel P VergesSidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Costas D LallasSidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Costas.Lallas@jefferson.edu.
Scott G HuboskySidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Demetrius H BagleySidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis study aims to make the reader be aware of recent trends regarding the endoscopic management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) via review of the urologic literature over the past 5 years. Given the rare incidence of this disease, and the lack of level 1 evidence, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were also evaluated. Studies of importance are also considered and outlined in the annotated reference section. RECENT

findingsThe PubMed database was queried using the following medical subject headings (MeSH terms): "carcinoma, transitional cell," "ureter," "ureteral neoplasms," "kidney pelvis," "endoscopy," "laser therapy," "ureteroscopy," "urologic surgical procedures," and "ureteroscopes." MeSH terms were linked together in varying combinations and limited to human studies in English. Given the relatively rare nature of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), level 1 evidence regarding the efficacy of endoscopic treatment does not exist, even after 30+ years of experience. Rather, the literature available mostly is in the form of single institutional retrospective series consisting of relatively small numbers of patients with short to intermediate follow-up. Only within the last 3 years have published series with larger numbers of patients and mean follow-up over 5 years been made available. Even with these more robust experiences, comparisons among series are difficult given variable treatment and follow-up approaches. Most endoscopically managed UTUC will locally recur, especially with longer follow-up. Renal preservation rate is high, however, approaching 80% with follow-up well over 3 years. Patients with high-grade disease often fare poorly regardless of treatment modality. As such, endoscopic management for high-grade urothelial carcinoma should only be used in exceptional circumstances (i.e., in those patients medically unfit for NU or those with solitary kidneys wishing to avoid the morbidity of dialysis). No level 1 evidence exists for the routine use of intraluminal adjuvant therapy for UTUC (i.e., BCG and Mitomycin C) and multiple retrospective observational series claim there is no overt benefit. The recent formation of multiple international groups with interest in UTUC may eventually lead to the production of level 1 studies regarding optimal treatment; however, uniformity in treatment approach will likely still offer challenges.

Indexed as

UreteroscopyHumansLaser TherapyMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeUrologic NeoplasmsUrologic Surgical ProceduresEndourologyLaser ablationLaser therapyMinimally invasive urologyPercutaneous renal surgeryUpper tract urothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

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.