Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36897417›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2023

En Bloc Resection Versus Conventional TURBT for T1HG Bladder Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Takafumi Yanagisawa, Akihiro Matsukawa, Kosuke Iwatani, Shun Sato, Yasushi Hayashida, Yohei Okada, Takashi Yorozu, Wataru Fukuokaya, Keigo Sakanaka, Fumihiko Urabe and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Perioperative Safety and Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of En Bloc Resection of Bladder Tumor: A Multicenter Real-World Study of 668 Patients.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Round up.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.

Takafumi YanagisawaDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7410-0712
Akihiro MatsukawaDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Kosuke IwataniDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Shun SatoDepartment of Pathology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasushi HayashidaDepartment of Urology, National Hospital Organization Ureshino Medical Center, Saga, Japan.
Yohei OkadaDepartment of Urology, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama, Japan.
Takashi YorozuDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Wataru FukuokayaDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Keigo SakanakaDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Fumihiko UrabeDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Shoji KimuraDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Shunsuke TsuzukiDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Masayuki ShimodaDepartment of Pathology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroyuki TakahashiDepartment of Pathology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Jun MikiDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. junmiki.jikei@gmail.com.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Takahiro KimuraDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Jikei University School of Medicine · JPAl-Ahliyya Amman University · JONational Hospital Organization · JPSocial Insurance Saitama Chuo Hospital · JPTokyo Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to assess the clinical, oncological, and pathological impact of en bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) compared with conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumors (cTURBT) for pT1 high-grade (HG) bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the record of 326 patients (cTURBT: n = 216, ERBT: n = 110) diagnosed with pT1 HG bladder cancer at multiple institutions. The cohorts were matched by one-to-one propensity scores based on patient and tumor demographics. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and perioperative and pathologic outcomes were compared. The prognosticators of RFS and PFS were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model.

resultsAfter matching, 202 patients (cTURBT: n = 101, ERBT: n = 101) were retained. There were no differences in perioperative outcomes between the two procedures. The 3-year RFS, PFS, and CSS were not different between the two procedures (p = 0.7, 1, and 0.7, respectively). Among patients who underwent repeat transurethral resection (reTUR), the rate of any residue on reTUR was significantly lower in the ERBT group (cTURBT: 36% versus ERBT: 15%, p = 0.029). Adequate sampling of muscularis propria (83% versus 93%, p = 0.029) and diagnostic rates of pT1a/b substaging (90% versus 100%, p < 0.001) were significantly better in ERBT specimen compared with cTURBT specimen. On multivariable analyses, pT1a/b substaging was a prognosticator of disease progression.

conclusionsIn patients with pT1HG bladder cancer, ERBT had similar perioperative and mid-term oncologic outcomes compared with cTURBT. However, ERBT improves the quality of resection and specimen, yielding less residue on reTUR and yielding superior histopathologic information such as substaging.

Indexed as

Urinary Bladder NeoplasmsCystectomyHumansPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesUrologic Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

PMID36897417
OpenAlexW4323808573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.