Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36632153›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2022

Comparison of molecular profiles of upper tract urothelial carcinoma

Eisuke Tomiyama, Kazutoshi Fujita, Mamoru Hashimoto, Shogo Adomi, Atsunari Kawashima, Takafumi Minami, Kazuhiro Yoshimura, Hirotsugu Uemura, Norio Nonomura

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. PET Imaging in Bladder Cancer: An Update and Future Direction.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  20. 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.

Eisuke TomiyamaDepartment of Urology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Kazutoshi FujitaDepartment of Urology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Mamoru HashimotoDepartment of Urology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Ohno-Higashi, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka, Japan.
Shogo AdomiDepartment of Urology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Ohno-Higashi, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka, Japan.
Atsunari KawashimaDepartment of Urology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Takafumi MinamiDepartment of Urology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Ohno-Higashi, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka, Japan.
Kazuhiro YoshimuraDepartment of Urology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Ohno-Higashi, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka, Japan.
Hirotsugu UemuraDepartment of Urology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Ohno-Higashi, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka, Japan.
Norio NonomuraDepartment of Urology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Although upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) shares the histological appearance of urinary bladder cancer (UBC), molecular studies suggest that UTUC and UBC represent two distinct disease entities. However, treatment approaches for UTUC are virtually extrapolated from the evidence on UBC. As targeted drugs-immune-checkpoint inhibitors, fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors, and antibody-drug conjugates-target specific molecules, gaining more knowledge about the target-molecular profiles of each drug can help formulate optimal treatment strategies for UTUC. Methods: This narrative review summarized the subgroup analyses of clinical trials of FDA-approved targeted drugs to explore the differential effects of each targeted drug when administered for UTUC compared to UBC. We focused on the differences in mutation frequency, RNA expression subtype, and therapeutic target protein expressions (specifically PD-L1, Nectin-4, and Trop-2) between UTUC and UBC and discussed their relationship with the efficacy of each targeted drug. Key Content and Findings: A clinical trial of nivolumab in an adjuvant setting (CheckMate 274) implied that immune-checkpoint inhibitors might be less efficacious in UTUC than in UBC. Genomic and transcriptomic studies suggest that UTUC has a high frequency of Conclusions: Clinical differences in the effects of targeted drugs for UTUC and UBC may highlight the molecular differences between these diseases. The treatment strategy should be optimized based on further investigation of the molecular characteristics of UTUC.

Indexed as

immune-checkpoint inhibitorsimmunohistochemistrynext-generation sequencingtargeted therapyUpper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC)

Identifiers

PMID36632153
PMCPMC9827402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.