SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Prognostic effects of different nephroureterectomy techniques for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. 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.
- Prognostic factors for mortality and recurrence after radical nephroureterectomy for UTUC: a Brazilian cohort study.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Operative approaches and outcomes of nephroureterectomy for UTUC: a network meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Analysis of risk factors for postoperative bladder cancer in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma and construction of nomogram prediction model.BMC urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUpper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is an aggressive malignant tumor, with surgical intervention as the primary treatment. This study evaluates the prognostic effects of laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (LNU), open radical nephroureterectomy (ONU), robot-assisted laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (Robotic LNU), and hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (Hand LNU) in the treatment of UTUC through a network meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials meeting the criteria from database inception until April 2024. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effects of each surgical method on overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall recurrence rate (ORE).
resultsSeventeen randomized controlled trials were included in this network meta-analysis. The results indicated that LNU significantly improved CSS compared to ONU [HR = 0.81, 95%CI= (0.7, 0.93)], while there were no significant differences between Hand LNU and Robotic LNU compared to ONU. Among minimally invasive surgeries, Hand LNU significantly shortened CSS compared to LNU [HR = 1.49, 95%CI=(1.1, 2.03)]. Regarding ORE, no significant differences were found between LNU, Hand LNU, and Robotic LNU compared to ONU, although LNU had a higher recurrence rate than Robotic LNU [HR = 1.705, 95%CI=(1.007, 3.001)]. For OS, both LNU [HR = 0.84, 95%CI=(0.75, 0.94)] and Robotic LNU [HR = 0.81, 95%CI=(0.68, 0.96)] were significantly better than ONU, whereas Hand LNU significantly shortened OS compared to LNU and Robotic LNU. There were no significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) between LNU and ONU. The cumulative efficacy ranking indicated that Robotic LNU ranked highest for ORE and OS, while LNU ranked first for CSS.
conclusionRobotic LNU demonstrates advantages in prolonging OS and reducing recurrence rates, while LNU excels in improving CSS. Although Hand LNU shows suboptimal effects in some comparisons, it remains valuable, and surgical choices should be based on individualized needs.
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.