ArticleBJUI compass2025
Waiting time in diagnosis and extirpative surgery and association with survival and stage progression in upper tract urothelial carcinomas.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Early detection of urological malignancies in Lynch syndrome: a systematic review.Familial cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Risk of second primary malignancies after bladder cancer diagnosed at a young age: a SEER population-based analysis.International journal of clinical oncology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the association between waiting time and outcomes in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinomas (UTUC). Patients and methods: We studied a population-based cohort of 858 patients in BladderBaSe 2.0 subjected to extirpative surgery for UTUC 2015-2019 in Sweden. Diagnostic waiting time (from referral to diagnosis, reference <1 week), treatment waiting time (from diagnosis to surgery, reference <5 weeks) and total waiting time (reference <10 weeks) were investigated in relation to disease-specific (DSS) and overall survival (OS) by multivariable Cox regression models. To further explore these associations, stage progression from preoperatively recorded clinical tumour stage to pathological tumour stage in the extirpated specimen was assessed by logistic regression. Results: Total waiting time was not associated with DSS, OS or stage progression. A diagnostic waiting time between 1 and 4 weeks was associated with better DSS (HR 0.57 [95% CI 0.35-0.94]) and OS (HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.41-0.87]). In the strata of patients with UTUC in the renal pelvis, a diagnostic waiting time > 4 weeks was associated with stage progression (OR 2.44 [95% CI 1.00-5.95]), and in patients with UTUC in the ureter, a treatment waiting time between 5 and 10 weeks was associated to worse DSS (HR 2.85 (95% CI 1.03-7.89). Conclusions: In general, shorter care pathways were linked to beneficial survival estimates, yet some estimates may be influenced by selection bias due to prioritizing short waiting times for patients with advanced and/or overt symptomatic tumours. Stage progression with increased waiting time may indicate an underlying causal mechanism.
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.