ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2024
Pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy in female patients diagnosed with bladder cancer.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Feasibility and early outcomes of single-port robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal ileal conduit: an initial Spanish case series.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy (POPRC) has been reported to result in a better postoperative quality of life in female with bladder cancer compared to standard radical cystectomy (SRC). However, its oncological outcomes remain a concern. PATIENTS AND
methodsFemale patients with bladder cancer who underwent POPRC or SRC were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of POPRC usage. To avoid the potential impact of baseline differences between groups on survival, a 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) was implemented. After that, Kaplan-Meier curves and Log-rank tests were used to determine the significance of overall survival (OS) differences between patients in the SRC group and POPRC group. Finally, subgroup analysis based on predetermined indicators was performed.
resultsA total of 2193 patients were included with a median follow-up of 53 months, of whom 233 (10.6%) received POPRC and 1960 (89.4%) received SRC. No definitive predictors of POPRC were identified. Before PSM, POPRC resulted in comparable OS to SRC (HR = 1.09, p = 0.309), while after PSM, POPRC was associated with significantly worse OS (HR = 1.23, p = 0.038). In subgroup analyses, POPRC led to non-inferior OS (HR = 1.18, 95%CI 0.71-1.95, p = 0.531) in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and T2 patients (HR = 1.07, p = 0.669), but significantly worse OS in T3 patients (HR = 1.41, p = 0.02).
conclusionCurrently, patients undergoing POPRC have not undergone strict screening, and candidates for POPRC should have more stringent criteria in the future to achieve satisfactory oncological outcomes. However, flaws in the study make more evidence needed to support our findings.
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.