Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30763230›Full record

ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2019

Are there differences between de novo and secondary upper tract urothelial carcinoma tumours?

Hanan Goldberg, Douglas C Cheung, Thenappan Chandrasekar, Zachary Klaassen, Christopher J D Wallis, Girish S Kulkarni, Rashid Sayyid, Andrew Evans, Mehdi Masoomian, Bharati Bapat and 4 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 72% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hanan GoldbergDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Douglas C CheungDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Thenappan ChandrasekarDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Zachary KlaassenDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Christopher J D WallisDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Girish S KulkarniDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Rashid SayyidDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Andrew EvansPathology Department, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mehdi MasoomianPathology Department, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Bharati BapatDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, and Lunenfeld Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Theodorus van der KwastPathology Department, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Robert J HamiltonDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Alexandre ZlottaDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Neil FleshnerDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University Health Network · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUpper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) accounts for <5% of all urothelial cancers. We aimed to ascertain the clinical differences between UTUC tumours presenting de novo (DnUTUC) and those presenting secondary (SUTUC) following a bladder cancer diagnosis.

methodsOur institutional database was queried for all UTUC patients who were surgically treated with radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy between 2003 and 2017. Bladder recurrence and cancer-specific mortality were compared. To reduce the possible bias due to confounding variables obtained from a simple comparison of outcomes, DnUTUC patients were matched (for age, gender, tumour location, type of surgery, grade, TNM staging, presence of carcinoma in situ, and lymphovascular invasion) with propensity score to SUTUC patients. Bladder recurrence and cancer-specific mortality were assessed with Cox proportional hazards model.

resultsA total of 117 UTUC patients were identified: 80 with DnUTUC (68.4%) and 37 with SUTUC (31.6%). A greater proportion of males with SUTUC was demonstrated (89.2% vs. 68.8; p=0.02). In both groups, 67.5% of patients had high-grade disease, but SUTUC demonstrated a higher carcinoma in situ rate (43.2% vs. 25%; p=0.047). Univariate analysis demonstrated that the five-year bladder recurrence rate was trending to be higher in SUTUC (65.3% vs. 20.5%; p=0.099). In the Cox model, however, it was associated with increased bladder recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 3.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.68-8.09; p=0.001). Although univariate analysis demonstrated that SUTUC patients were more likely to die of their disease (30.6% vs. 9%; p=0.009), the multivariable Cox model did not demonstrate this association. The limitations of this study include its retrospective, single-centre design and relatively small cohort of patients.

conclusionsIn this hypothesis-generating study, some evidence suggests that further research is needed to delineate differences between SUTUC and DnUTUC.

Identifiers

PMID30763230
PMCPMC6754256
OpenAlexW2914903365

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.