Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30334174›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2019

Lymph node dissection could bring survival benefits to patients diagnosed with clinically node-negative upper urinary tract urothelial cancer: a population-based, propensity score-matched study.

Fan Dong, Tianyuan Xu, Xianjin Wang, Yifan Shen, Xiaohua Zhang, Shanwen Chen, Shan Zhong, Minguang Zhang, Qiang Ding

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fan DongDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan Institute of Urology, Fudan University, No.12 Middle Urumqi Road, Shanghai, 200040, China.
Tianyuan XuDepartment of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Xianjin WangDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan Institute of Urology, Fudan University, No.12 Middle Urumqi Road, Shanghai, 200040, China.
Yifan ShenDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan Institute of Urology, Fudan University, No.12 Middle Urumqi Road, Shanghai, 200040, China.
Xiaohua ZhangDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan Institute of Urology, Fudan University, No.12 Middle Urumqi Road, Shanghai, 200040, China.
Shanwen ChenDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan Institute of Urology, Fudan University, No.12 Middle Urumqi Road, Shanghai, 200040, China.
Shan ZhongDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan Institute of Urology, Fudan University, No.12 Middle Urumqi Road, Shanghai, 200040, China. 445219143@qq.com.
Minguang ZhangDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan Institute of Urology, Fudan University, No.12 Middle Urumqi Road, Shanghai, 200040, China. zmgurol@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7519-8723
Qiang DingDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan Institute of Urology, Fudan University, No.12 Middle Urumqi Road, Shanghai, 200040, China.
Fudan University · CNTongji University · CN

Funding

National Basic Research Program of China 2015CB943003National Natural Science Foundation of China 81370753National Natural Science Foundation of China 81702507National Natural Science Foundation of China 81771578Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai 14ZR1426200
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the survival benefits that lymph node dissection (LND) brought to clinically node-negative upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients.

methodsNon-metastatic node-negative UTUC patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. N0 patients were naturally divided as cN0-pNx group (clinically diagnosed as N0 without LND performed) and cNx-pN0 group (pathologically diagnosed as node-negative no matter what clinical node status they have).

resultsOf the 2731 patients included, 2240 and 491 cases were cN0-pNx and cNx-pN0, respectively. The overall survival (OS) of cNx-pN0 patients was significantly better than that of cNx-pN0 patients (p = 0.022). After propensity score matching, the survival of cNx-pN0 patients was still significantly better than cN0-pNx group. Besides, multivariate analyses showed cNx-pN0 (received LND) was an independent favorable prognostic factor for OS and CSS compared with cN0-pNx (no LND). Survival advantages of pN0 group were more significant in ≥ T2 patients and patients with tumor size ≤ 5 cm. Even in N0 patients who received adjuvant treatment, LND still brought obvious survival improvement (HRos = 0.565, p = 0.013; HRcss = 0.607, p = 0.046).

conclusionLND could improve survival outcomes in patients with clinically node-negative UTUC, especially for those with muscle-invasive diseases (T2-4 stages) or smaller tumor size (≤ 5 cm). Adjuvant treatment after nephroureterectomy is incapable of replacing the therapeutic role of LND.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNephroureterectomyPrognosisPropensity ScoreUreteral NeoplasmsUrologic NeoplasmsUrotheliumCancer-specific survivalClinically node-negativeLymph node dissectionOverall survivalUpper urinary tract urothelial cancer

Identifiers

PMID30334174
OpenAlexW2897780045

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.