ReviewBJUI compass2025
Understanding oncological and sexual function outcomes with gynaecological organ preserving cystectomy in women with bladder cancer; a systematic review.
Review in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sexual life and intimate relationship experience among bladder cancer patients: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of protocolized intravesical instillation after TURBT on men's sexual quality of life:a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in urology · 2026Article
- Understanding oncological and sexual function outcomes with gynaecological organ preserving cystectomy in women with bladder cancer; a systematic review.BJUI compass · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives: Cystectomy for bladder cancer (BC) in women involves removing gynaecological organs and the anterior vaginal wall, significantly impacting sexual function (SF). Gynaecological organ-preserving cystectomy (GOPC) aims to minimise toxicity, but limited studies assess its impact. We reviewed existing evidence. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using Ovid (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL) and Cochrane Library. Studies assessing survival and SF outcomes of GOPC and SF outcomes of standard cystectomy were included. Results: Fourteen studies (1049 screened) reported on small cohorts (11-41 patients). Most GOPC patients had ≤T2b N0 M0 disease, while standard cystectomy patients had up to T4/N1. In the GOPC cohort median follow-up was 36 months.Over a 16-70 month period, Disease-Free Survival in GOPC patients was 80-100%. Due to heterogeneity in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS), a narrative analysis was performed.GOPC patients reported high levels of sexual activity, reduced dyspareunia and moderate-to-high satisfaction. While SF initially declined, recovery improved over time, with Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) scores exceeding the 26.2 dysfunction threshold in two studies by 12 months.In standard cystectomy, sexual dysfunction was common, with varying distress levels and inadequate patient counselling. Conclusions: Understanding the outcomes of GOPC is limited by study design and measurement variability, and meta-analysis was not possible. In this narrative review, oncological outcomes in the GOPC group appears to have equivalent oncological outcomes to a standard radical cystectomy in carefully selected female patients. Sexual recovery outcomes in either complete or partial sexual organ preserving cystectomy appear to be better than a standard female radical cystectomy. Further prospective studies, particularly those involving nerve-sparing surgery, are needed. Women undergoing either standard cystectomy and GOPC commonly experience sexual dysfunction, and there is a need to improve pre- and post-operative counselling.
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.