Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30322230›Full record

ArticleCancer research and treatment2019

Laparoscopy versus Open Nephroureterectomy in Prognostic Outcome of Patients with Advanced Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer: A Retrospective, Multicenter, Propensity-Score Matching Analysis.

Sung Han Kim, Mi Kyung Song, Jung Kwon Kim, Bumsik Hong, Seok Ho Kang, Ja Hyeon Ku, Byong Chang Jeong, Ho Kyung Seo

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors.

Sung Han KimDepartment of Urology, Center for Prostate Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Mi Kyung SongBiometrics Research Branch, Research Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Jung Kwon KimDepartment of Urology, Center for Prostate Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Bumsik HongDepartment of Urology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, 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.
Ho Kyung SeoDepartment of Urology, Center for Prostate Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.

Funding

National Cancer Center NCC-2016-0040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes between open nephroureterectomy (ONU) and laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe medical records of consecutive ONU and LNU cases from five tertiary institutions were retrospectively analyzed between 2000 and 2012. The propensity-score matching methodology was used to compare the two surgical approaches in terms of age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor location, grade, pathologic T and N categories, the presence of lymphovascular invasion, and follow-up duration. The Kaplan-Meier with log-rank tests and clustered Cox regression were used to compare the estimated rates of survival for each surgical approach and to investigate the effect of the surgical approach on each prognostic outcome.

resultsSix hundred thirty-eight propensity-score matching pairs (n=1,276) were compared; LNU was significantly better than ONU in all types of survival, including intravesical recurrencefree survival (IVRFS), disease-free survival, overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) (p < 0.05). The 3-year OS and CSS rates were significantly higher with LNU than with ONU (p < 0.05). Compared with ONU, LNU had significantly better 3-year OS and CSS rates (82.9% and 86.2% vs. 78.3% and 81.8%); there were no differences at 5 years. In subgroup analysis of the early-staged group, advanced-stage group, lymph node-positive group, and lymph node-negative group, the two approaches did not significantly affect prognostic outcomes, except LNU improved the IVRFS in the lymph node-negative or no history of previous bladder cancer group.

conclusionLNU had a significantly better prognostic outcome than ONU after propensity-score matching.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBody Mass IndexCarcinoma, Transitional CellFemaleHumansKidney NeoplasmsLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm InvasivenessNephroureterectomyPrognosisPropensity ScoreLaparoscopyNephroureterectomyPrognosisSurvivalUrothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID30322230
PMCPMC6639211

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.