Evidence Hub

Squamous cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract in patients with urolithiasis: a systematic review

M. Stizzo, A. Rubinacci, Simone Tammaro, L. Spirito, D. Arcaniolo, I. Goumas, G. Giusti, Stefano Puliatti et al.

Mini-invasive Surgery, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Aim: To perform a systematic review on the current evidence about the squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the upper urinary tract in patients with urolithiasis.

Methods: A comprehensive bibliographic search on the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in December 2024. The SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) framework was used to define inclusion criteria: male and female patients with urolithiasis (S); presence of SCC of the upper urinary tract (PI); prospective and retrospective studies (D); diagnosis based on imaging or pathological examination (E); qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods (R). Quality of studies was assessed with Murad scale. Extracted data were synthesized in a narrative fashion. PROSPERO ID: “CRD42024625816”.

Results: A total of 35 articles were included. Eight case series (22.9%) and 27 case reports (77.1%) were analyzed. The overall quality of papers was low. Sixty-three cases of SCC in patients with urolithiasis (range: 1-11) were identified. The male-to-female ratio was 1.55, with a median age of 60 years (range: 25-87). Most common symptoms included pain (70%), hematuria (60%), and infection (40%). Staghorn stones (48%) and multiple stones (42%) were the most frequently encountered types of calculi. Almost all SCCs (97%) developed in the calico-pyelic system. A radiological suspicion of SCC was raised using imaging in 64% of patients, while in 52% of cases it was an…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free