ArticleWorld journal of urology2018
Salvage topical therapy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
Article in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adjuvant intraluminal therapies for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Review
- The role of endoscopic management and adjuvant topical therapy for upper tract urothelial cancer.Frontiers in urology · 2022Article
- Nephron-sparing management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma.Investigative and clinical urology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTopical therapy (TT) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) has been explored as a kidney sparing approach to treat carcinoma in situ (CIS) and as adjuvant for endoscopically treated Ta/T1 tumors. In bladder cancer, data support use of salvage TT for repeat induction. We investigate the outcomes of salvage TT for UTUC in patients ineligible for or refusing nephroureterectomy.
methodsA single-center retrospective review on patients receiving salvage TT via percutaneous nephrostomy tube or cystoscopically placed ureteral catheters was performed. Primary outcome was response to therapy based on International Bladder Cancer Group criteria.
results51 patients with 58 renal units (RUs) received TT. Of these, 17 patients with 18 RUs received the second-line TT, with a median follow-up of 36.5 months (IQR 24.5-67 months). 44% (8/18) received salvage TT for refractory disease and 56% (10/18) as reinduction. 5 RUs with CIS were unresponsive to initial TT and went on to receive salvage TT, of which 20% (1/5) responded. 13 RUs recurred or relapsed following initial TT and received salvage TT for papillary tumors, with 62% (8/13) responding.
conclusionOur data provide preliminary clinical rationale for the second-line TT for refractory and recurrent, endoscopically managed papillary UTUC in patients ineligible for or refusing nephroureterectomy. However, refractory upper tract CIS appears to have poor response to salvage TT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.