Evidence Hub

Primary Adenocarcinoma of the Upper Urinary Tract: A Systematic Review of the Literature on a Rare Entity

I. Giannakodimos, Evripidis Bekiaris, Afroditi Ziogou, A. Giannakodimos, Evangelia Mitakidi, Konstantina Psalla, E. Fragkiadis, Ares Kaltsas et al.

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2025

84 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background: Only a few published cases of primary adenocarcinoma of the upper urinary tract have been described in the literature. The aim of this systematic review was to collect all published cases of primary adenocarcinoma of the upper UT and identify prognostic factors and useful diagnostic modalities for their optimal treatment. Methods: Systematic research in the PubMed/Medline and Scopus databases concerning primary adenocarcinoma of the upper urinary tract was performed by two independent investigators. A total of 85 studies were included in the review. Results: In total, 84 patients were included, consisting of 54 males (64.29%) and 30 females (35.71%). Out of the available data, 24.71% reported a history of lithiasis, 16.47% episodes of pyelonephritis and 10.59% a history of hydronephrosis. Concerning histologic findings on excised tumors, 52.44% of neoplasms were mucinous, 19.51% tubulovilous, 18.29% papillary, 4.88% mixed mucinous–papillary and 4.88% poorly differentiated. Concerning anatomical origin, 62.34% of tumors were found in the renal pelvis, 22.08% in the ureter and 12.99% in both the renal pelvis and the ureter. Surgical treatment was the preferred therapeutic option and was performed in 96.39% of the included patients. In multivariable analysis, a statistically significant relationship was found between a clinical cure and ureter origin of the lesion (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.00–0.22, p = 0.002), the presence of an abdominal mass (OR: 0.08, 95% CI:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 84 participants or records.

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