ArticleBJU international2025
External validation of current quality care metrics after radical nephroureterectomy.
Article in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo externally validate the tetrafecta and pentafecta frameworks for assessing the quality of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) and their correlation with oncological outcomes in patients with localised upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 545 patients who underwent RNU for localised UTUC between 2012 and 2023 at eight French university hospitals and one Lebanese university hospital. Achievement of tetrafecta required four criteria to be met: negative surgical margins, complete bladder cuff excision, lymph node dissection (if indicated), and absence of recurrence within 12 months. Pentafecta consisted of the same criteria, plus no major complications or haematological events. Oncological outcomes assessed included intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Kaplan-Meier analyses, Cox regression, and calibration plots were used to evaluate the predictive performance of the frameworks for 3-year outcomes.
resultsA total of 29.5% of our cohort achieved tetrafecta and 34.5% achieved pentafecta. Patients meeting either of these quality care metrics demonstrated significantly improved oncological outcomes, with higher 3-year OS rates (tetrafecta: 90.1% vs 74.2%, P < 0.001; pentafecta: 89.4% vs 73.4%, P < 0.001) and RFS rates (tetrafecta: 84.5% vs 57.6%, P < 0.001; pentafecta: 83.5% vs 56%, P < 0.001). Both metrics showed high predictive accuracy for OS (area under the curve [AUC] 0.92 for tetrafecta; 0.93 for pentafecta, P = 0.41) and CSS (AUC 0.944 for tetrafecta; 0.945 for pentafecta, P = 0.6018). Pentafecta achievement was independently associated with better OS and CSS in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-0.55, P < 0.001 and (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.54, P < 0.001, respectively).
conclusionTetrafecta and pentafecta are reliable tools for assessing oncological outcomes after RNU in localised UTUC. Pentafecta demonstrated stronger prognostic value for OS, particularly in high-risk populations. These metrics offer a standardised framework to guide clinical decisions, evaluate surgical quality, and counsel patients about prognosis.
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.