↓ Skip to main content

Impact of pathological factors on survival in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in International Brazilian Journal of Urology, June 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of pathological factors on survival in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
International Brazilian Journal of Urology, June 2022
DOI 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2020.1032
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gopal Sharma, Anuj Kumar Yadav, Tarun Pareek, Pawan Kaundal, Shantanu Tyagi, Sudheer Kumar Devana, Shrawan Kumar Singh

Abstract

There is an ongoing need to identify various pathological factors that can predict various survival parameters in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). With this review, we aim to scrutinize the impact of several pathological factors on recurrence free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with UTUC. Systematic electronic literature search of various databases was conducted for this review. Studies providing multivariate hazard ratios (HR) for various pathological factors such as tumor margin, necrosis, stage, grade, location, architecture, lymph node status, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), carcinoma in situ (CIS), multifocality and variant histology as predictor of survival parameters were included and pooled analysis of HR was performed. In this review, 63 studies with 35.714 patients were included. For RFS, all except tumor location (HR 0.94, p=0.60) and necrosis (HR 1.00, p=0.98) were associated with worst survival. All the pathological variables except tumor location (HR 0.95, p=0.66) were associated with worst CSS. For OS, only presence of CIS (HR 1.03, p=0.73) and tumor location (HR 1.05, p=0.74) were not predictor of survival. We noted tumor grade, stage, presence of LVI, lymph node metastasis, hydronephrosis, variant histology, sessile architecture, margin positivity and multifocality were associated with poor RFS, CSS and OS. Presence of CIS was associated with poor RFS and CSS but not OS. Tumor necrosis was associated with worst CSS and OS but not RFS. Tumor location was not a predictor of any of the survival parameters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 25%
Other 1 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 25%
Unknown 2 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 May 2021.
All research outputs
#19,930,562
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#449
of 726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#315,480
of 446,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 726 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 446,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.