ArticleBJUI compass2026
Reassessing re-TURBT in the modern era: Is it time to move from routine to selective?
Article in BJUI compass, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reassessing re-TURBT in the modern era: Is it time to move from routine to selective?BJUI compass · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This work aimed to determine the pathological yield of restaging transurethral resection of bladder tumour (re-TURBT) in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) managed at a contemporary tertiary-care setting and to describe clinicopathological features among patients with positive restaging histopathology to select patients most likely to benefit from re-TURBT. Patients and Methods: This single-centre retrospective observational case-control analysis within a re-TURBT cohort included patients who underwent macroscopically complete index TURBT for presumed NMIBC and subsequently underwent restaging TURBT within the institutional pathway. Patients with muscle-invasive disease at index TURBT, benign pathology, non-urothelial carcinoma, variant histology, or ineligibility for re-TURBT for any reason were excluded. The primary outcome was positive restaging histopathology, defined as residual urothelial neoplasia or pathological progression. In addition, clinicopathological variables were explored to identify factors potentially associated with positive re-TURBT, including tumour size, multifocality, age, sex, tumour grade, detrusor muscle status, and carcinoma in situ on index histopathology. Results: Among 188 TURBT records assessed, 79 patients underwent re-TURBT and formed the analysed cohort. Median age was 64 years (IQR 56-69), 69 patients (87.3%) were male, and detrusor muscle was present in 77 index specimens (97.5%). Positive restaging histopathology occurred in nine patients (11.4%), comprising residual disease in eight (10.1%) and Ta high-grade to T1 high-grade progression in one (1.3%); no muscle-invasive upstaging was observed. In the T1-only analysis, positivity occurred in 8/69 (11.6%). Larger tumours, multifocality and CIS were more frequent among positive cases. Follow-up recurrence admission occurred in 9 patients (11.4%). Conclusion: In this contemporary re-TURBT series, the pathological yield of restaging was low, with uncommon progression. Positivity clustered in those with larger tumours (≥3 cm) and high-risk biology (multifocal disease and carcinoma in situ on index histopathology). These findings are hypothesis-generating and support prospective evaluation of selective restaging strategies in the contemporary era.
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.