ArticleCancer medicine2023
Preoperative accuracy of diagnostic evaluation of urachal carcinoma.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urachal Carcinomas: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyPooled it
- Clinical and imaging predictors of urachal carcinoma: the role of gross hematuria and calcification in a single-center retrospective study.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Robot‑assisted laparoscopic partial cystectomy for urachal carcinoma: A case report.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- A remnant never forgotten: the utility of circulating tumor DNA in treatment guidance of urachal cancer.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024Article
- Preoperative accuracy of diagnostic evaluation of urachal carcinoma.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe analyzed the clinical data of patients with urachal carcinoma (UrC) in order to strengthen urologists' understanding of UrC and improve preoperative diagnosis.
methodsThe clinical data of 37 patients with UrC admitted to our hospital from October 2005 to April 2022 were retrospectively analyzed, and 40 patients with urothelial carcinoma (UCa) of bladder were enrolled as the control group. We compared and analyzed the imaging, cystoscopy and immunohistochemistry, serum tumor markers, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of UrC and bladder UCa for early diagnosis and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy.
resultsA total of 37 patients with UrC were enrolled in this study, including 30 males and seven females, with a median age of 52.00 (44.50-63.50) years. Imaging and cystoscopy suggest that UrC grows primarily outside the bladder cavity and is found in the middle line of the dome or anterior wall of the bladder. There was a significant difference in tumor location between the UrC group and the UCa group (10.13 mm vs. -7.06 mm, p < 0.001). Immunohistochemistry revealed that CK20 and CDX-2 were both diffusely and strongly positive. β-catenin was strongly positive in cytoplasm and membrane, but negative in nuclear staining. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 72-4 (CA724) expression levels were significantly higher in the UrC group than in the UCa group (p < 0.05). In the diagnosis of UrC, the area under the curve (AUC) of CEA combined with CA724 was the greatest. FISH's sensitivity in diagnosing UrC (5/7, 71.43%) was not significantly different from that of UCa (71.43% vs. 77.50%, p = 0.659). Imaging examination has the highest sensitivity and specificity among the accuracy evaluation of different diagnostic methods.
conclusionsImaging and cystoscopy are the powerful diagnostic methods for UrC. Serum tumor markers may assist in diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring. Positive urine FISH can easily misdiagnose UrC as UCa.
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.