Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29690748›Full record

ArticleCancer research and treatment2019

The Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes between Open and Laparoscopic Radical Nephroureterectomy for the Treatment of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Korean Multicenter Collaborative Study.

Tae Heon Kim, Bumsik Hong, Ho Kyung Seo, Seok Ho Kang, Ja Hyeon Ku, Byong Chang Jeong

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Tae Heon KimDepartment of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Bumsik HongDepartment of Urology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ho Kyung SeoDepartment of Urology, Center for Prostate Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Seok Ho KangDepartment of Urology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ja Hyeon KuDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Byong Chang JeongDepartment of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe compared oncologic outcomes of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) who underwent open nephroureterectomy (ONU) or laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU). MATERIALS AND

methodsConsecutive cases of ONU and LNU between 2000 and 2012 at five participating institutions were included in this retrospective analysis. Clinical characteristics and pathologic outcomes were compared between the two surgical approaches. The influence of the type of surgical approach on intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRFS), progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences were assessed with the log-rank test. Predictors of IVRFS, PFS, CSS, and OS were also analyzed with a multivariable Cox regression model.

resultsA total of 1,521 patients with UTUC were eligible for the present study (ONU, 906; LNU, 615). The estimated 5-year IVRFS (57.8 vs. 51.0%, p=0.010), CSS (80.4 vs. 76.4%, p=0.032), and OS (75.8 vs. 71.4%, p=0.026) rates were significantly different between the two groups in favor of LNU. Moreover, in patients with locally advanced disease (pT3/pT4), the LNU group showed better 5-year IVRFS (62.9 vs. 54.1%, p=0.038), CSS (64.3 vs. 56.9%, p=0.022), and OS (60.4 vs. 53.1%, p=0.018) rates than the ONU group. Multivariable Cox regression analyses showed that type of surgical approach was independently associated with IVRFS, but was not related to PFS, CSS, and OS.

conclusionOur findings indicate that LNU provided better oncologic control of IVRFS, CSS, and OS compared with ONU for the management of patients with UTUC.

Indexed as

AgedCarcinoma, Transitional CellDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedNephroureterectomyRegression AnalysisRepublic of KoreaRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUrologic NeoplasmsLaparoscopyMalignant diseaseSurvivalTransitional cell cancer

Identifiers

PMID29690748
PMCPMC6333991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.