ArticleClinical genitourinary cancer2023
Practice Patterns Regarding Female Reproductive Organ-Sparing and Nerve-Sparing Radical Cystectomy Among Urologic Oncologists in the United States.
Article in Clinical genitourinary cancer, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes and Predictive Factors for Gynecologic Organ Involvement in Radical Cystectomy for Female Bladder Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Optimizing local control in the surgical management of bladder cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Urothelial carcinoma: Perioperative considerations from top to bottom.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFemale reproductive organ-sparing (ROS) and nerve-sparing radical cystectomy (RC) techniques have been shown to be oncologically safe and to improve sexual function outcomes among select patients with organ-confined disease. We sought to characterize practice patterns regarding female ROS and nerve-sparing RC among US urologists. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of members of the Society of Urologic Oncology to assess provider-reported frequency of ROS and nerve-sparing RC in premenopausal and postmenopausal patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer that failed intravesical therapy or clinically localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
resultsAmong 101 urologists, 80 (79.2%) reported that they routinely resect the uterus/cervix, 68 (67.3%) the neurovascular bundle, 49 (48.5%) the ovaries, and 19 (18.8%) a portion of the vagina when performing RC in premenopausal patients with organ-confined disease. When asked about changes to approach in postmenopausal patients, 71 participants (70.3%) reported that they were less likely to spare the uterus/cervix, 44 (43.6%) were less likely to spare the neurovascular bundle, 70 (69.3%) were less likely to spare the ovaries, and 23 (22.8%) were less likely to spare a portion of the vagina.
conclusionWe identified significant gaps in adoption of female ROS and nerve-sparing RC techniques for patients with organ-confined disease, despite evidence that ROS and nerve-sparing techniques are oncologically safe and can optimize functional outcomes in select patients. Future efforts should improve provider training in and education about ROS and nerve-sparing RC to improve postoperative outcomes among female patients.
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.