ArticleBJUI compass2024
Immune checkpoint inhibitors in high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Paradigm shift emphasizing organ preservation.
Article in BJUI compass, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immune checkpoint inhibitors in bladder cancer: from mechanistic insights to emerging combination frontlines.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Review
- Tumor derived adiponectin induces immunosuppressive macrophages in upper tract urothelial carcinoma.Translational oncology · 2026Article
- Erratum.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Immune checkpoint inhibitors in high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Paradigm shift emphasizing organ preservation.BJUI compass · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2024
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: The aim was to evaluate the role of immune check point inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) who are managed endoscopically when nephroureterectomy (NU) is not feasible, such as in patients who are either not candidates for NU or decline extirpative surgery. Methods: All patients diagnosed with high-grade UTUC and managed endoscopically between January 1996 and August 2022 were included in the study. Subsequently, patients were categorised based on their use of ICIs into group 1 (patients who did not receive ICIs) and group 2 (patients who received ICIs). Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, while a multivariable regression model was employed to analyse the impact of clinical characteristics on survival. Results: A total of 29 patients were enrolled, with 14 in group 1 and 15 in group 2. Both groups exhibited similar demographic and disease characteristics, including multifocality, laterality and initial tumour size. The median follow-up period was 29.2 months. Notably, group 2 demonstrated significantly enhanced overall and metastasis-free survival rates compared to group 1. At 47.8 months, the overall survival rate was 0% (all patients died) in group 1, whereas it was 85.7% in group 2. Similarly, the metastasis-free survival rate was 0% (all patients had metastatic disease) in group 1 at 40.6 months, whereas it reached 78.0% in group 2. The multivariable analysis indicated a correlation between ICI usage and improved survival outcomes, with a hazard ratio of 0.002. Conclusion: Utilisation of adjuvant ICIs in the setting of endoscopically treated patients with high-grade UTUC is associated with significantly improved survival rates. ICIs should be considered in this patient population, however, more studies with larger sample size are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.