ReviewBJU international2025
What has the COVID-19 pandemic taught us about safety of surgical wait times in urological oncology?
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo review papers assessing the impact of surgical delay in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, and evaluate what has been learnt about the safety of surgical waiting times in urological oncology. PATIENTS AND
methodsMedline and Web of Science were searched for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 1 November 2024. Studies included were those reporting treatment delay effects on surgical or oncological outcomes, or patient experience with reference to COVID-19. Priority was given to studies deriving their cohort after the start of the pandemic. Studies were also included in which the cohort was derived before the pandemic, but where recommendations were made on COVID-19 treatment delay. Data were extracted regarding duration of delay and authors' reported impact of delay on outcome (quantified, and simplified as negative/neutral/positive).
resultsA total of 35 studies met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies included data collected after the start of the pandemic and 21 exclusively included cohorts derived prior to the pandemic but made recommendations about COVID-19-related treatment delays. Six studies on urothelial cancer reported negative clinical outcomes for delays between 2 weeks and 3 months, while three reported a neutral impact. Four studies on kidney cancer reported negative outcomes with 1-3-month delay, while two reported a neutral impact. Eleven studies on prostate cancer reported that a 3-12-month delay had neutral effects, while one reported negative outcomes. One study on penile cancer reported worse survival with delays in treatment. No studies on testicular cancer were identified. Five studies reported negative patient experience with delays, while one reported a positive patient experience.
conclusionsFew studies have reported the impacts of COVID-19-related delayed treatment; this was a missed opportunity. While most prostate cancer treatment can be deferred up to 180 days, diagnostic cystoscopy, transurethral resection of bladder tumour and nephrectomy for cT2+ renal masses should be expedited to occur within 30 days. Treatment of cT1 renal masses, carcinoma invading bladder muscle, upper tract urothelial carcinoma and high-risk prostate cancer should commence within 90 days.
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.