The role of surgical resection of the primary tumor in metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To evaluate the role of extirpative surgery for the primary tumor in metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma (mUTUC). RECENT FINDINGS: The PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched on July 2024 to identify relevant studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) statement. Studies were eligible for analysis if they compared oncologic outcomes between mUTUC patients who underwent surgical resection of the primary tumor and patients who did not. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using multivariate logistic regression analyses. We identified 2686 reports, of which 11 articles comprising 12 833 records were selected for this systematic review. Eight and three studies used Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) and National Cancer Database (NCDB) databases, respectively. Surgical resection of the primary tumor was significantly associated with better CSS and OS in patients with mUTUC. Among the 5353 mUTUC patients included in our meta-analysis, radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) was independently associated with better OS with a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.72, P < 0.05]. Subgroup analyses of studies restricted to mUTUC patients with distant lymph node metastasis ( n = 1372) revealed RNU to be independently associated with better OS with pooled HR: 0.44 (95% CI 0.28-0.67, P < 0.05) together with systemic chemotherapy, primary tumor site in the ureter, lower T stage, and no locoregional lymph node involvement. SUMMARY: Surgical resection of the primary tumor offers oncologic survival benefits in select patients with mUTUC. However, in the absence of data from prospective randomized studies, it is essential to evaluate each patient individually as part of a collaborative multidisciplinary shared decision working with the patient.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".