Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38298767›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2024

Current Evidence on Utility, Outcomes, and Limitations of Endoscopic Laser Ablation for Localized Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Results from a Scoping Review.

Carlo Giulioni, Giacomo Maria Pirola, Martina Maggi, Carlo Brocca, Pietro Tramanzoli, Silvia Stramucci, Matteo Mantovan, Leonard Perpepaj, Andrea Cicconofri, Vineet Gauhar and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Carlo GiulioniUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Giacomo Maria PirolaDepartment of Urology, San Giuseppe Hospital, Multimedica Group, Milano, Italy.
Martina MaggiDepartment of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Umberto I Polyclinic Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Carlo BroccaUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Pietro TramanzoliUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Silvia StramucciUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Matteo MantovanUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Leonard PerpepajUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Andrea CicconofriUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Vineet GauharDepartment of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Andrea Benedetto GalosiUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Daniele CastellaniUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Marche Polytechnic University · ITMultiMedica · ITNg Teng Fong General Hospital · SGPoliclinico Umberto I · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: The occurrence of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is uncommon and is usually identified at an advanced and multifocal stage. Currently, there is growing interest in utilizing endoscopic laser ablation (ELA). Objective: To evaluate the survival rates and perioperative complications of ELA. Evidence acquisition: We performed a literature search through PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. The analysis included observational studies that examined the oncological outcomes of patients with UTUC treated with ELA. Evidence synthesis: Neodymium and diode lasers are no longer used due to their high complication rates. Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) and thulium:YAG lasers provided excellent tumor ablation and hemostasis in both the collecting system and the ureter. These lasers offer good disease-free and cancer-specific survival, especially for low-grade tumors. Conclusions: Advancements in laser technology and ablation techniques, and understanding of UTUC tumor biology hold significant promise in improving the use of conservative UTUC treatment, with excellent safety and good oncological outcomes for low-grade diseases. Patient summary: With the advancement of technology, the conservative approach utilizing endoscopic laser ablation for upper tract urothelial tumors has been proved to be both safe and effective, showcasing promising survival rates.

Indexed as

Endoscopic treatmentLaserNephron-sparing surgerySurvivalUpper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID38298767
PMCPMC10829601
OpenAlexW4389977432

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.