Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyReview Article1 Apr 2021Editorial CommentThis article comments on the following:Does Ureteral Stenting Increase the Risk of Metachronous Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma in Patients with Bladder Tumors? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysisis a letter which has replyReply by Authors Francesco Greco Francesco GrecoFrancesco Greco Department of Urology, Humanitas Gavazzeni, Bergamo, Italy More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001548.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail The impact of preoperative renal decompression in patients affected by BCa on the development of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is still an object of discussion. In 2017 Kiss et al suggested that preoperative ureteral stenting for hydronephrosis prior to RC was an independent predictor of UTUC incidence and that patients with hydronephrosis prior to RC should be drained by percutaneous drainage rather than ureteral stenting (reference 34 in article). In disagreement with the latter study, Miest et al (2) investigated 1,049 patients who underwent RC (reference 32 in article). Five-year post-RC UTUC incidence ranged from 6.6% to 18.7% and nephrostomy tube drainage and preoperative ureteral stenting were both associated with UTUC after RC. Nevertheless, ureteral stenting did not have a significantly higher association with UTUC than nephrostomy tube drainage. In the present systematic review, Sountoulides et al analyzed 5 retrospective cohort studies including 3,309 individuals and compared ureteral stenting versus nephrostomy or no drainage with regard to the risk of metachronous UTUC. Applying the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, 3 studies were considered of good and 2 of moderate quality. Patients treated with ureteral stenting were associated with a higher risk of developing metachronous UTUC compared to no stenting. The first important recommendation we learn from this study is to avoid prophylactic stenting after resection of tumors involving the orifice. Moreover, this study highlights the similar impact of ureteral stenting or percutaneous nephrostomy on the risk of metachronous upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Future randomized studies comparing ureteral stenting or percutaneous nephrostomy as a therapeutic option in cases of hydronephrosis in patients planned for RC are mandatory in order to evaluate the best approach, which could improve preoperative renal function without significantly worsening oncologic outcomes. © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesJournal of UrologyDec 7, 2020, 12:00:00 AMDoes Ureteral Stenting Increase the Risk of Metachronous Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma in Patients with Bladder Tumors? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysisJournal of UrologyFeb 3, 2021, 12:00:00 AMReply by Authors Volume 205Issue 4April 2021Page: 965-966 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Francesco Greco Department of Urology, Humanitas Gavazzeni, Bergamo, Italy More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement Loading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».