Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30944969›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2019

Consultation on UTUC, Stockholm 2018 aspects of risk stratification: long-term results and follow-up.

Mudhar N Hasan, Morgan Rouprêt, Francis Keeley, Cecilia Cracco, Robert Jones, Michael Straub, Olivier Traxer, Palle Jörn Sloth Osther, Marianne Brehmer

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readConsensus StatementReview
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. It is linked to trial NCT07077447 (DaBlaCa 23 - The European Collaborative Study on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

NCT07077447 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

DaBlaCa 23 - The European Collaborative Study on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma

TypeobservationalSponsorZealand University HospitalRan2025 to 2040Enrolled2,500ConditionsUpper Urinary Tract Urothelial CarcinomaArmsKidney sparing surgery for high-risk upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Consultation on UTUC Stockholm 2018.World journal of urology · 2019
    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 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Mudhar N HasanDivision of Urology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Morgan RouprêtSorbonne Université, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 75013, Paris, France.
Francis KeeleyBristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, England, UK.
Cecilia CraccoDepartment of Urology, Cottolengo Hospital of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Robert JonesInstitute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK.
Michael StraubDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Olivier TraxerSorbonne Université, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France.
Palle Jörn Sloth OstherDepartment of Urology, Lillebaelt Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.
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
Karolinska Institutet · SESorbonne Université · FRBeatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre · GBSouthmead Hospital · GBTUM Klinikum · DEUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo summarize current knowledge on upper urinary tract carcinoma (UTUC) regarding risk stratification, long-term results, and follow-up.

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, September 2018, Stockholm.

resultsTo optimize oncological outcome considering both cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS), it is essential to identify pre- and postoperative prognostic factors. In low-risk UTUC, kidney-sparing surgery (KSS) and radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) offer equivalent CSS, whereas RNU may result in poorer OS due to nephron loss. For more aggressive tumours, undergrading can lead to insufficient treatment. The strongest prognostic factors are tumour stage and grade. Determining grade is best achieved by ureterorenoscopy (URS) with focal samples, biopsy and cytology. Staging is more difficult but can be indirectly achieved by multiphase computed tomography urography (CTU) or tumour grade determined by cytology and histopathology. Patients treated with KSS should be monitored closely with regular follow-ups (URS and CTU).

conclusionKSS should be offered in low-risk UTUC when feasible, whereas RNU is the treatment of choice in organ-confined high-risk UTUC. Intravesical recurrence (IVR) is common after RNU, but a single postoperative dose of mitomycin instillation decreases IVR. Endourological management has high local and bladder recurrence rates; however, its effect on CSS or overall survival OS is unclear. RNU is associated with significant risk of chronic kidney disease. Careful selection of patients and risk stratification are mandatory, and patients should be followed according to strict protocols.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentCarcinoma, Transitional CellFollow-Up StudiesHumansKidney NeoplasmsSwedenTime FactorsUreteral NeoplasmsFollow-upKSSPrognosisRenal pelvisRisk stratificationRNUTreatmentUpper tractUreterUrothelial carcinomaUTUC

Identifiers

PMID30944969
PMCPMC6825637
OpenAlexW2928383567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.