| Title |
Salvage topical therapy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Urology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00345-018-2349-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adithya Balasubramanian, Michael J. Metcalfe, Gavin Wagenheim, Lianchun Xiao, John Papadopoulos, Neema Navai, John W. Davis, Jose A. Karam, Ashish M. Kamat, Christopher G. Wood, Colin P. Dinney, Surena F. Matin |
| Abstract |
Topical therapy (TT) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) has been explored as a kidney sparing approach to treat carcinoma in situ (CIS) and as adjuvant for endoscopically treated Ta/T1 tumors. In bladder cancer, data support use of salvage TT for repeat induction. We investigate the outcomes of salvage TT for UTUC in patients ineligible for or refusing nephroureterectomy. A single-center retrospective review on patients receiving salvage TT via percutaneous nephrostomy tube or cystoscopically placed ureteral catheters was performed. Primary outcome was response to therapy based on International Bladder Cancer Group criteria. 51 patients with 58 renal units (RUs) received TT. Of these, 17 patients with 18 RUs received the second-line TT, with a median follow-up of 36.5 months (IQR 24.5-67 months). 44% (8/18) received salvage TT for refractory disease and 56% (10/18) as reinduction. 5 RUs with CIS were unresponsive to initial TT and went on to receive salvage TT, of which 20% (1/5) responded. 13 RUs recurred or relapsed following initial TT and received salvage TT for papillary tumors, with 62% (8/13) responding. Our data provide preliminary clinical rationale for the second-line TT for refractory and recurrent, endoscopically managed papillary UTUC in patients ineligible for or refusing nephroureterectomy. However, refractory upper tract CIS appears to have poor response to salvage TT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 80% |
| Turkey | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 56% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 20% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 17 | 68% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,610,923
of 24,775,802 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#825
of 2,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,192
of 336,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#28
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,775,802 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.