Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30915526›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2019

Consultation on UTUC, Stockholm 2018 aspects of diagnosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

Grzegorz Fojecki, Anders Magnusson, Olivier Traxer, Joyce Baard, Palle Jörn Sloth Osther, Georg Jaremko, Christian Seitz, Thomas Knoll, Guido Giusti, Marianne Brehmer

Abstract readConsensus StatementReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Consultation on UTUC Stockholm 2018.World journal of urology · 2019
    Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

10 authors.

Grzegorz FojeckiDepartment of Urology, Hospital of Southern Jutland, Sønderborg, Denmark.
Anders MagnussonDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Olivier TraxerHôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
Joyce BaardDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Holland.
Palle Jörn Sloth OstherUrological Research Center, Lillebaelt Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.
Georg JaremkoDepartment of Clinical Pathology and Cytology, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.
Christian SeitzDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas KnollDepartment of Urology, Teaching Hospital University Tuebingen, Sindelfingen, Germany.
Guido GiustiDepartment of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Ville Turro Division, Milan, Italy.
Marianne BrehmerDivision of Urology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. marianne.brehmer@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9232-363X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo summarize knowledge on upper urinary tract carcinoma (UTUC) regarding diagnostic procedures, risk factors and prognostic markers.

methodsA scoping review approach was applied to search literature in Pubmed, Web of Science, and Embase. Consensus was reached through discussions at Consultation on UTUC in Stockholm, September 2018.

resultsTumor stage and grade are the most important prognostic factors. CT urography (CTU) including corticomedullary phase is the preferred imaging modality. A clear tumor on CTU in combination with high-grade UTUC in urine cytology identifies high-risk UTUC, and in some cases indirect staging can be obtained. Bladder urine cytology has limited sensitivity, and in most cases ureterorenoscopy (URS) with in situ samples for cytology and histopathology are mandatory for exact diagnosis. Image-enhancing techniques, Image S1 and narrow-band imaging, may improve tumor detection at URS. Direct confocal laser endomicroscopy may help to define grade during URS. There is strong correlation between stage and grade, accordingly correct grading is crucial. The correlation is more pronounced using the 1999 WHO than the 2004 classification: however, the 1999 system risks greater interobserver variability. Using both systems is advisable. A number of tissue-based molecular markers have been studied. None has proven ready for use in clinical practice.

conclusionsCorrect grading and staging of UTUC are mandatory for adequate treatment decisions. Optimal diagnostic workup should include CTU with corticomedullary phase, URS with in situ cytology and biopsies. Both WHO classification systems (1999 and 2004) should be used to decrease risk of undergrading or overtreatment.

Indexed as

BiopsyCarcinoma, Transitional CellDiagnostic Techniques, UrologicalHumansKidney NeoplasmsPrognosisRisk FactorsSwedenUreteral NeoplasmsUreteroscopyCT urographyDiagnosticsDiagnostic samplesUpper tract urothelial carcinomaUreteroscopyUTUC

Identifiers

PMID30915526
PMCPMC6825655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.