ArticleMedicine2020
Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on survival prognosis and pathological downstaging in patients presenting with high-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. 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.
- Prognostic value of PD-L1 combined positive score in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2021Article
- Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Population Based Analysis.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Association of the Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) with Cisplatin Resistance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeControversy remains with using neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed literature to assess the role of NAC in high-risk UTUC patients.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were the main sources of relevant studies. The search terms included: "Upper urothelial carcinoma"; "UTUC"; "Urinary tract cancer"; and "Transitional cell carcinoma" combined with "Neoadjuvant chemotherapy" and "adjuvant chemotherapy". We studied the relationship of UTUC and NAC. Overall survival, recurrent-free survival, cancer-specific survival and pathological response rate in patients treated with/without NAC before radical surgery were evaluated.
resultsFive trials were selected, and included 532 participants. Each of the included studies was retrospective. The combined analysis showed that when compared to controls, the pooled hazard ratios of overall survival, recurrence-free survival and cancer-specific survival were 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.64; P < .00001); 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37-0.66; P < .00001); and 0.37 (95% CI, 0.25-0.54; P < .00001), respectively. It indicates the beneficial effects of NAC for the prognosis of survival in UTUC. Additionally, NAC was significantly associated with T-stage down-grading (T3/4 to ≤T2; OR=7.58 [4.66, 12.33]; P < .0001) and pathological lymph node status (N+ to N0; OR = 6.24 [2.57,15.15]; P < .00001).
conclusionsNAC treatment before radical nephron-ureterectomy significantly improves survival prognosis in patients with high-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma. However, considerable prospective and randomized studies are needed to confirm this perspective.
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.