Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42738413›Full record

ArticleCancers2026

Role of Second-Look Ureterorenoscopy After Endoscopic Treatment of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma.

Mohammad Abufaraj, Beat Foerster, Tim Muilwijk, Gautier Marcq, Thomas Seisen, Roger Li, Leonardo L Monteiro, Marco Bandini, Donald Schweitzer, Alexander Kenigsberg and 17 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

Mohammad AbufarajDivision of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan.ORCID 0000-0002-6603-6319
Beat FoersterDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-7864-408X
Tim MuilwijkDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6965-389X
Gautier MarcqDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC H4A 0B1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1806-1448
Thomas SeisenDepartment of Urology, Sorbonne University, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Urology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, F-75013 Paris, France.
Roger LiDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL 33612, USA.
Leonardo L MonteiroDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC H4A 0B1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0014-4755
Marco BandiniDepartment of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Donald SchweitzerDepartment of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1006 Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4038-0952
Alexander KenigsbergDivision of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
David D'AndreaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-1625-1077
Kees HendricksenDepartment of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1006 Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Francesco SoriaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Giuseppe FallaraDepartment of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Steven JoniauDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-3195-9890
Evanguelos XylinasDepartment of Urology, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris Descartes University, 75018 Paris, France.
Marco MoschiniDepartment of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Morgan RouprêtDepartment of Urology, Sorbonne University, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Urology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, F-75013 Paris, France.
Alberto BrigantiDepartment of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Philippe E SpiessDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL 33612, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5723-1972
Wassim KassoufDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC H4A 0B1, Canada.
Georgi GuruliDivision of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
Hubert JohnDepartment of Urology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland.
Dmitry EnikeevInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 119991 Moscow, Russia.
Mounsif AziziDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, QC H2X 3E4, Canada.
Pierre ColinDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Privé de La Louvière, Générale de Santé, 59042 Lille, France.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6627-6179

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the rate and predictors of recurrence at second-look ureterorenoscopy (URS) and to assess the adequate timeframe for second-look URS in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).

methodsThis multicenter retrospective study included 179 patients who underwent endoscopic kidney-sparing surgery (KSS) and second-look URS for non-invasive UTUC between 2004 and 2017. We performed logistic and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses to investigate the association between clinical parameters and second-look recurrence, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and cancer-specific mortality. The optimal duration to second-look URS was extrapolated using restricted cubic splines.

resultsOverall, 66 (36.9%) patients experienced recurrence at second-look URS. After second-look URS, further recurrence was observed in 87 (48.6%) patients during a median follow-up of 12 months. Female gender (OR [odds ratio] 2.3, 95% CI [confidence interval] 1.1-4.7,

conclusionsEarly recurrence at second-look URS appears to be one of the strongest predictive factors for RFS in patients undergoing endoscopic KSS. Our results suggest that second-look URS performed within 5 to 12 weeks is associated with a lower probability of further disease recurrence. Given that this interval was derived and tested in the same cohort, this finding should be regarded as hypothesis-generating and requires external validation before being adopted as a clinical standard.

Indexed as

kidney sparing surgerylocal neoplasm recurrencesecond look surgeryupper tract urothelial carcinomaureterorenoscopy

Identifiers

PMID42738413
PMCPMC13564666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.