ArticleBJU international2026
Oncologic outcomes of radical radiotherapy in frail patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
Article in BJU international, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate oncologic outcomes of high-dose radical radiotherapy (RT) in medically frail patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 63 patients with UTUC who received definitive RT at four major academic hospitals (2014-2021) with significant comorbidities (age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥3). Patients were stratified into high- and low-dose groups using a biologically effective dose (BED
resultsThe median follow-up was 76 months. The pelvic ureter was the most frequently involved site (57%), followed by the renal pelvis (33%) and the abdominal ureter (21%). In the IPTW-adjusted cohort, the disease control rate was significantly higher with high-dose RT (98% vs 62%, P < 0.001). High-dose RT significantly improved IPTW-adjusted locoregional control (3-year LRC: 51% vs 29%, P = 0.041), freedom from distant metastasis (3-year FFDM: 75% vs 39%, P = 0.001), freedom from progression (3-year FFP: 43% vs 25%, P = 0.013), and overall survival (3-year OS: 46% vs 11%, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified higher RT dose as an independent prognosticator of improved FFP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.96, P = 0.018) and OS (aHR 0.93, P < 0.001). Furthermore, pre-RT gross haematuria (aHR 2.63, P = 0.002) and age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index >5 (aHR 2.85, P = 0.007) were associated with worse OS.
conclusionA clear dose-response relationship was observed in UTUC treated with definitive RT. High-dose RT was associated with significantly improved survival and represents a safe alternative for medically frail patients.
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.