ArticleBJU international2021
Flexible fibre optic vs digital ureteroscopy and enhanced vs unenhanced imaging for diagnosis and treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC): results from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourology Society (CROES)-UTUC registry.
Article in BJU international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced Endoscopic Imaging Technologies in Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Tumors: Implications for Kidney-Sparing Surgery-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparative insights into upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Aligning Chinese Urological Association and European Association of Urology guidelines with clinical practice.Asian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Influence of tumour location on the survival outcomes of upper tract urothelial carcinoma treated with radical nephroureterectomy.World journal of urology · 2025Observational
- Consultation on UTUC II Stockholm 2022: diagnostics, prognostication, and follow-up-where are we today?World journal of urology · 2023Review
- Novel laser therapies and new technologies in the endoscopic management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Review
- The utility of clinical registries for guiding clinical practice in upper tract urothelial cancer: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Review
- The role of endoscopic management and adjuvant topical therapy for upper tract urothelial cancer.Frontiers in urology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the oncological outcomes of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) undergoing kidney-sparing surgery (KSS) with fibre-optic (FO) vs digital (D) ureteroscopy (URS). To evaluate the oncological impact of image-enhancement technologies such as narrow-band imaging (NBI) and Image1-S in patients with UTUC. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe Clinical Research Office of the Endourology Society (CROES)-UTUC registry is an international, multicentre, cohort study prospectively collecting data on patients with UTUC. Patients undergoing flexible FO- or D-URS for diagnostic or diagnostic and treatment purposes were included. Differences between groups in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated.
resultsThe CROES registry included 2380 patients from 101 centres and 37 countries, of whom 401 patients underwent URS (FO-URS 186 and D-URS 215). FO-URS were performed more frequently for diagnostic purposes, while D-URS was peformed when a combined diagnostic and treatment strategy was planned. Intra- and postoperative complications did not differ between the groups. The 5-year OS and DFS rates were 91.5% and 66.4%, respectively. The mean OS was 42 months for patients receiving FO-URS and 39 months for those undergoing D-URS (P = 0.9); the mean DFS was 28 months in the FO-URS group and 21 months in the D-URS group (P < 0.001). In patients who received URS with treatment purposes, there were no differences in OS (P = 0.9) and DFS (P = 0.7). NBI and Image1-S technologies did not improve OS or DFS over D-URS.
conclusionsD-URS did not provide any oncological advantage over FO-URS. Similarly, no differences in terms of OS and DFS were found when image-enhancement technologies were compared to D-URS. These findings underline the importance of surgeon skills and experience, and reinforce the need for the centralisation of UTUC care.
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.