ReviewCurrent urology2019
Comparison of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Upper Tract versus Lower Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Current urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Site-specific differences in Nectin-4 expression and associated immune contexture in advanced urothelial carcinoma: implications for Nectin-4-targeted ADCs.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
- The Role of Lymph Node Dissection in the Management of Upper Urothelial Cancer: A Nodal Status-Based Meta-Analytical Study.Urology research & practice · 2023Article
- Oncogenic Roles of Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 in Bladder Cancer and Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma.Biomedicines · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrinciples of management for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) are mostly derived from knowledge of lower tract urothelial carcinoma (LTUC), however recent research indicates that these may be disparate diseases. In this review, we sought to compare the responsiveness of these tumors to similar treatment, platinum-based chemotherapy used in the adjuvant setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched using a systematic search strategy. Disease-free survival (DFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with LTUC and UTUC treated with adjuvant chemotherapy were compared. Review Manager V 5.3 was used for meta-analyses.
resultsAdjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved DFS (HR 0.41, 95%CI 0.31-0.54), CSS (HR 0.29, 95%CI 0.17-0.50) and OS (HR 0.51, 95%CI 0.38-0.70) rates in LTUC. The effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in UTUC was less pronounced with respect to DFS (HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.1-0.93) and CSS (HR 0.70, 95%CI 0.56-0.90) rates, and there was no effect on OS (HR 0.87, 95%CI 0.69-1.10). Differences in CSS and OS were significant (p < 0.0001) in favor of adjuvant chemotherapy for LTUC versus UTUC.
conclusionDespite similar histology, we found significant differences in responsiveness to adjuvant chemotherapy between LTUC and UTUC. This may add to the already growing knowledge that these are disparate diseases. Newer systemic treatments for urothelial carcinoma may prove more effective than platinum-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting for UTUC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.