Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".