ArticleHeliyon2023
Endoscopic excision versus radical nephroureterectomy for non-muscle invasive upper tract urothelial carcinoma: A population-based large cohort study.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Kidney sparing surgery versus radical nephroureterectomy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As an important kidney-sparing treatment for upper urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), whether endoscopic excision can be performed without sacrificing oncologic outcomes remains indefinite. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and efficacy of endoscopic excision, in patients with non-muscle invasive UTUC (NMIUTUC) and compare them to those of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, we reviewed 4347 cases with NMIUTUC (cTis/Ta/T1-N0-M0,≤ 5.0 cm) between 2004 and 2020. Surgical treatment modalities included endoscopic excision and RNU. Propensity score matching analysis was used to minimize the selection bias between endoscopic excision and RNU, selecting 1:1 matched patients in the two group. Results: A total of 794 patients with NMIUTUC were included after matching (397:397). Patients who underwent endoscopic excision had worse survival outcomes compared with those of patients who underwent RNU (5-year OS: 65.3 % vs. 80.3 %, p < 0.0001; 5-year DSS: 83.2 % vs. 94.0 %, p = 0.00021). After stratification by anatomical sites, the effect of endoscopic excision for NMI renal pelvis cancer was worse than RNU (5-year OS, 62.9 % vs. 82.8 %; 5-year DSS, 78.8 % vs. 91.6 %), while in NMI ureteral cancer, there is no statistically significant difference in OS and DSS between endoscopic excision and RNU. Further stratification according to tumor grade revealed equivalent tumor control effects of endoscopic excision and RNU in low-grade NMI ureteral cancer (5-year OS: 67.7 % vs. 72.5 %, p = 0.23; 5-year DSS: 87.2 % vs. 93.1 %, p = 0.17); while for renal pelvis tumor and high-grade ureteral tumor, endoscopic excision was related with significantly inferior prognosis. Conclusions: Only for low-grade NMI ureteral cancer, endoscopic excision and RNU are oncologically equivalent, indicating that endoscopic excision might be an effective option for low-grade NMI ureteral cancer. This result needs to be further verified in randomized controlled trials.
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.