Evidence mapPaperPMID 37680219Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2023

Oncologic outcomes following radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a literature review.

Gabrielle Grob, Devin Rogers, Savio D Pandolfo, Srinivas Vourganti, Maurizio Buscarini, Reza Mehrazin, B Mayer Grob, Maria C Mir, Sisto Perdonà, Ithaar H Derweesh and 4 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

14 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Gabrielle GrobDivision of Urology, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA.
Devin RogersDivision of Urology, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA.
Savio D PandolfoUrology Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.
Srinivas VourgantiDepartment of Urology, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Maurizio BuscariniDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Reza MehrazinDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
B Mayer GrobDivision of Urology, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA.
Maria C MirDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitario La Ribera, Valencia, Spain.
Sisto PerdonàUro-Gynecological Department, Fondazione "G. Pascale" IRCCS, Naples, Italy.
Ithaar H DerweeshDepartment of Urology, UCSD, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Antonio FrancoDepartment of Urology, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Edward E CherulloDepartment of Urology, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ashok K HemalDepartment of Urology, Wake Forest University, Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Riccardo AutorinoDepartment of Urology, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Rush University · USChildren's Hospital of Richmond at VCU · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USAtrium Health Wake Forest Baptist · USFederico II University Hospital · ITHospital de La Ribera · ESIstituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITUniversity of California, San Diego · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) represents the gold standard treatment for non-metastatic upper tract urothelial cancer. We sought to provide a comprehensive review of reported oncologic outcomes of the RNU procedure and of factors that might impact these outcomes. Methods: A non-systematic review of the literature was conducted by performing an electronic literature search using PubMed with "radical nephroureterectomy" and "oncologic outcomes" as free text search terms. Both original articles and systematic reviews were considered. Search was limited to articles in English that were published in the last 20 years. Key Content and Findings: Open and laparoscopic RNU offer comparable oncologic outcomes. In more recent years, the discussion has Conclusions: RNU is a procedure with measured long-term oncologic outcomes. Minimally invasive techniques have gained an established role as they seem to offer comparable oncologic "safety", although special attention is needed in relation to the method of bladder cuff excision. Robotic RNU is gaining popularity, and while evidence remains limited, the current literature supports the oncologic safety of this procedure. Several factors, which can be categorized as treatment-related, patient-related, and tumor-related, might impact the oncologic outcomes of UTUC patients undergoing RNU. These factors can provide crucial information to stratify patients based on their relative risk of disease recurrence and mortality which may guide clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Nephroureterectomyoncologic outcomesupper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC)

Identifiers

PMID37680219
PMCPMC10481200
OpenAlexW4386170678

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.